The Cross-Examination of Peter Strzok’s CBS Interview

0
29
Saint Pete

Nauseatingly predictable, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok is hawking a book, and no, Right Wire Report will not pimp for the likes of Strzok by linking to the title. Saint Pete sat outside across from CBS National Security Correspondent, David Martin, in his non-descript backyard to give an interview that aired on the Sunday Morning Show.

Strzok opens with identifying that he was sitting right inside his house when he wrote the official document which authorized the odyssey-Crossfire Hurricane. In one of the more bizarre moments in the interview, Strzok grins like a Cheshire cat as he recalls how he came up with the name for the investigation:

“Jumpin Jack Flash was running through my mind and one of the lyrics, Mick Jagger kind of swaggering saying, I was born in a crossfire hurricane, and I thought that’s a pretty good name.” 

What follows is the cross-examination that Martin chose to ignore. Here is the break down:

Martin: “Attorney General William Barr has said Crossfire Hurricane was based on a “very thin, slender reed. what was that?”

(Papadopoulos in London had drinks with some Australian diplomats who later contacted the FBI.)

Strzok: “Papadopoulos told them that somebody on the Trump campaign had received an offer that said the Russians had material that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton and to Obama, and they offered to coordinate the release of that information in a way that would help the Trump campaign,”

(Trump made this appeal about Hillary Clinton’s emails, on July 27, 2016: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”)

Strzok: “When they saw that statement by Trump, that triggered the memory of the conversation they had with Papadopoulos.”

Cross-Examination: Both the Special Counsel Muller’s Report and DOJ Inspector General Horowitz’s official timelines contradict your statements. How could Trump’s press comments have triggered the Australian government to contact the FBI, when the date that they informed the FBI was July 26, 2016, the day before Trump’s Russia email comments?” As an aside, is it not accurate to say Trump’s statement asked a foreign government, Russia, to hack or illegally obtain Hillary’s emails as those emails were already missing?

“I have nothing to do with Putin. … But it would be interesting to see. I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said on July 27, 2016.

Strzok: “Russia had offered to assist electing someone to be President of the United States, from an intelligence perspective, I can’t think of anything more significant.”

Cross-Examination: What evidence is there to support that claim? Newly declassified records of your investigation reveal that U.S. intelligence agencies used confidential human sources to infiltrate Trump campaign officials, including Professor Joseph Mifsud and Stephan Halper. Horowitz’s report identifies 17 significant errors or omissions related to Crossfire Hurricane, including exculpatory evidence showing Papadopoulos denies telling Downer any “Russian dirt.”

 Is it not true George claimed Downer had recorded him and the conversation felt like an interrogation, with Downer seeding questions about Russia? Is it also not true that declassified documents show that George provided multiple denials on wiretaps by FBI planted assets that he nor anyone associated with the campaign wanted to or were colluding with the Russians? Why do you think you and your team chose not to include those claims to the FISC when warrants were requested?

Mr. Strzok, from an intelligence perspective, as you have said, How significant is it that the Australian Diplomat, Downer, had significant ties to the Clintons, including securing one of the largest donations, $25 million, for the Clinton foundation?

Why did you write in your book, you told Muller that you did not believe the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia?

“I was skeptical that all the different threads amounted to anything more than bumbling incompetence, a confederacy of dunces who were too dumb to collude,”

(As the interview continued, Strzok said that there were four in the Trump campaign orbit that were of concern, Papadopoulos., Flynn, Page, and Manafort.)

Martin: “So, were you ready to close your investigation of Flynn?”

Strzok: “We were,” 

Martin: “That obviously didn’t happen. What changed?”

Strzok: “He had a bunch of phone calls and contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States.”

Martin: “What’s wrong with that?”

Strzok: “I think what makes [it] a problem is when you look at the content and nature of the things that Flynn tells the ambassador.”

(Narration claims Flynn asked Kislyak not to retaliate for Obama administration sanctions against Russia. The conversation, in which Flynn potentially interfered with President Obama’s foreign policy, was recorded by U.S. intelligence.)

Cross-Examination: You have indicated you kept the case open and proceeded to question the days old National Security Director of an incoming administration about his conversations during the transition period with the Russian Ambassador, is that correct? Is it accurate to say that General Flynn’s 2015 trip to Moscow to attend an event was proceeded and followed up by Flynn himself briefing intelligence agencies? Why would you venture to investigate an issue that was well known and sanctioned by U.S. Intelligence? 

Moving on, is it unusual for a newly elected transition team to make contact with other counterparts in other countries during the transition? Did General Flynn’s conversations break any law? Is it not true he was not charged with any inappropriate communications with Kislyak? Does the Grassley release of transcripts of his call not indicate he did not lie to the FBI about discussions on sanctions? Do they reveal Flynn never engaged in any discussion about lifting or changing sanctions rather, he spoke of Russia’s reaction to those sanctions? Did he not ask a question solely focused on the possible retaliation response and inquired of there was to be one, it would be proportional?

(Narration  about Manafort states, according to a new report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Manafort was “a grave counterintelligence threat” who “sought to secretly share” with a Russian intelligence officer “sensitive campaign polling data.”)

Martin:If it’s their poll, isn’t it theirs to give to whoever they want to give?”

Strzok: “If you’re giving that to somebody who is passing it to a foreign adversary who is targeting our elections, how is that possibly okay?”

Martin: “Is it a crime?”

Strzok: “Whether or not it’s a crime, to me, it’s unequivocally unpatriotic,” 

Cross-Examination: So you have established that sharing polling data is not a crime, and Manafort was never charged with anything related to the 2016 election or Russia for that matter. How do you square that both the Russian Oligarch and Manafort deny this charge altogether, and Manafort’s lawyers produced two documents indicating the claim he shared data was inaccurate too? 

Why did the Mueller not show conclusive evidence that he did share polling data with Russia and instead concluded The office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2, meeting? The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election -interference efforts.” Does it sound to you like media reports might be the evidence Mueller’s team used to make the claim? Did the senate report not use the Intel from the Mueller report to support their findings?

(Narration about Strzok’s and Lisa Page’s text exchanges). 

Martin: “So, why shouldn’t Trump supporters suspect you of using the investigation as a tool to take him down?”

Strzok: “What I’d point them to are all the investigations that have been done that have conclusively proved that didn’t occur,” 

Cross-Examination: All of these so-called investigations you refer to were done by those being investigated presently by Durham and include the I.G. Report, which both Durham and Barr were compelled to make statements on once released, pointing to the fact that much of the documents required to rule out bias was not available to Horowitz. Further, they both disagreed with Horowitz’s assertion there was sufficient predicate to open your investigation. Why do you think they made those statements? Are you aware you are being investigated presently as well?

Martin: “is it just sloppy work, or is it the FBI agents trying too hard to get something on members of the Trump campaign?”

Strzok: “I don’t think at all that it is anything improper you get people overworked and make mistakes, don’t get me wrong inexcusable mistakes.”

Cross-Examination: Presumably, if the were just “overworked,” the mistakes would have been both negative and positive for Carter Page and Donald Trump, except all of the mistakes made, are in one direction to mislead the court to view both negatively. Why do you think that is?

Here is how “overworked” Strzok was with all his texting.

[embedded content]

Martin: “How does it feel to be in Donald Trump’s crosshairs?”

Strzok: “It’s horrible. It angers you. It scares you.”

Cross-Examination: You made the decision to open an FBI investigation on Donald Trump and his campaign, setting off the $40 million Special Counsel Investigation on a new President, which has crippled his first term and put domestic and national security at risk. To date, not one person affiliated with Trump has been charged with collusion with Russia or wrongdoing in the 2016 election cycle. How do you have the hubris to claim it is you that has been placed in the crosshairs of the victim of your choices?

Strzok appears to have aged a decade since his testimony on Capitol Hill. Behold the withering Saint Pete:

[embedded content]

So what are we to make of the timing of Saint Pete’s interview? Is it just about selling a book? Is this part of the still rolling coup against a duly elected president to trot Peter out right before the election to tell his side of the story? Or is this just pure unadulterated hubris?

Right Wire Report chooses the elevated view, which looks at not just Strzok’s recent actions but includes them in with other recent coup plotters behaviors of late. If one were aware that many still sitting within the powers of the justice department, Intelligence agencies, Congress, media, and the shadow government of Obama were working fiendishly to run out the clock in yours and their favor, wouldn’t one just lay low and keep their mouth shut?

Would you write Op-Eds in the NYT to inform your cadre of evildoers that you were loyal and kept to the party line? Would you rush your assets out onto MSM panels to play interference and cover for you? Most of all, would you arrogantly grab the mic, pose for the camera, and audaciously lie and obfuscate as you complete your Durham deposition?

The question would need to be put to Brennan, Comey, Yates, Rice, and Strzok. But our guess is you probably wouldn’t put yourself in the hot spotlight or make any unforced errors that could blow up in your face. Our read is the frying pan is sizzling smoke, and the bacon is popping any which way it can to get out in front of the crispy char!

The other factors, of course, are will the ongoing attempts to rig an election outcome through mail fraud, gas-lit civil unrest in our streets, and that extra special sauce the have yet to pour down on Trump be enough to run out the clock?

image RWR original article syndication source.