Trey Gowdy: FBI Lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page Should Testify in Front of Congress
(Correction: This article was accidentally published with a title belonging to another article The Western Journal was working on involving Rep. Gowdy. We apologize for any confusion we have caused by the mistake. — Ed. note)
After the Justice Department gave Congress less than 15 percent of the texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, outspoken Rep. Trey Gowdy has suggested that both should testify before Congress.
The accountability, Gowdy suggested on “Fox News Sunday” would help lawmakers deem whether or not the two FBI officials actually held enough power to take down President Donald Trump or even protect Hillary Clinton from criminal charges over email allegations.
“I can’t prove that they were the final decision makers, nor do I have to,” Gowdy admitted. “What I have to prove to you is two really important people hated (Trump); would have done anything to protect (Clinton).”
The House Republican top investigator suggested the texts were evidence that the two “hated” then-presidential candidate Trump, alluding to their bias against the current administration and alleged efforts to assist those within Democratic National Committee.
According to Fox News, one of the efforts of assisting Clinton came when Strzok interviewed Clinton about her use of private email servers during her time as secretary of state, soon after which the classified information was discovered.
Gowdy suggests that Strzok allegedly “scrubbed” the language about Clinton’s “grossly negligent” behavior from the final FBI report.
“Did they have the power to protect her?” Gowdy asked. “The decision not to charge (Clinton) was made even before they interviewed her. How would you like that deal?”
The Fox News guest also pointed to the two FBI officials and how they had been removed from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia-collusion investigation after Mueller learned of the “insidious” political bias against Trump.
“These are the same two people, whose bias was so insidious, that Bob Mueller fired them the second he found out about it,” Gowdy said. “These witnesses need to come in and tell us what they meant [by these texts] and everything else they said over the course of eighteen months.”
However, Gowdy refused to make a conclusion about whether or not one particular text — just one among 50,000 exchanged between the two “lovers” — which referred to a “secret society” of FBI agents was a joke or real.
“Republicans are better served by letting the texts speak for themselves,” Gowdy admitted. “These witnesses need to come in and tell us what they meant by it.”
So far, only around 7,000 texts exchanged between the FBI officials during their affair have been turned over.
As the Washington Examiner reported, a number of instances allude to the pair admitting that they should switch the conversation to iMessage, leading investigators to believe the sensitive information was discussed over personal Apple phones.
And though questions have been brought up as to why more texts haven’t been released — or will not ever be released — the answer may lie on just how relative they are to the investigation between the White House and Russia.
“The department is not providing text messages that were purely personal in nature,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote to investigators on Capitol Hill. “Furthermore, the department has redacted from some work-related text messages portions that were purely personal.”
Boyd went on to state that the departments in withholding or redacting certain messages were to “facilitate the committee’s access to potentially relevant” information.
The goal, Boyd suggested, was to limit having to “cull through large quantities of material unrelated to either the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server or the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
