FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he's willing to testify...

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post

FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he's willing to testify before Congress

By Matt Zapotosky
June 17 at 3:19 PM

The FBI agent who was removed from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election for sending anti-Trump texts intends to testify before the House Judiciary Committee and any other congressional committee that asks, his attorney said in a letter made public Sunday.

Peter Strzok, who was singled out in a recent Justice Department inspector general report for the politically charged messages, would be willing to testify without immunity, and he would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to any question, his attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in an interview Sunday. Strzok has become a special target of President Trump, who has used the texts to question the Russia investigation.

Goelman said Strzok "wants the chance to clear his name and tell his story."

"He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that," the lawyer said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-removed-from-russia-probe-for-anti-trump-texts-says-hes-willing-to-testify-before-congress/2018/06/17/8d144160-7256-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html

[Voltaire2]

1. In which case the house committee will put a

ten light year stick between their investigation and Strzok.

[Hortensis]

2. This man has paid a huge price for irresponsible

self indulgence in private emails with this colleague and close friend.

He was a rising star due to his proven great competence that resulted in his being chosen for the Mueller investigation. When Mueller punished him with transfer to Human Resources, that was worse than being transferred to real work in Siberia.

And now this.

I don't admire him, but I hope he fulfills his duty to his nation and can thus reestablish some of his lost honor and move on.

[7962]

3. Your description is a good one.

ANYONE in his position should know better than to be so openly biased in any communications.

[Hortensis]

4. Yes, he should have. Which is why I hope

rather than expect that he has learned from his mistakes and will be able to live up to what he owes his position and his nation. One thing we can be sure of, if his judgement and character weaknesses had been revealed before he would not have been chosen for this investigation.

[forgotmylogin]

11. The lesson for today kids:

Don't share your work number with friends and lovers.

[dhol82]

5. I will probably be flamed for this but I don't think he did something so heinous.

It was one freaking private exchange with his girlfriend.
He was trying to make her feel better
Do FBI agents have no right to personal opinions?
This just reminds me of the Franken witch-hunt.

[Phoenix61]

7. Actually worse than that, IMHO

How about we check for anti-Hillary texts being sent by FBI agents. Maybe start with the NY office?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Yes, start with the NYC office. Let's blue-wave a real House Committee to look for real evidence. nt

[dhol82]

10. Hell, that sounds like a great idea!

[Duppers]

16. "How about we check for anti-Hillary texts being sent by FBI agents."

AMEN!

[bitterross]

8. I agree with you.

Seriously, how many people type texts without thinking? Everyone does it. Not to mention, at the time, Trump becoming President was still pretty unbelievable. He made a bad bet and it cost him.

[forgotmylogin]

12. I believe it was on his work phone, though...

and therefore subject to review.

Yes, this is the most minor blip in the IG report that Con Man Donnie wants to fixate on, he being convinced that one mis-crossed T invalidates the entirety of the information it happens in.

[pangaia]

15. That is what always happens.

re-pube-licans do 10,000 tons of shit and when one democrat does one ounce,... well, you get the picture...

[24601]

17. You ask a legitimate question - and it's really a multi-part answer

In the court of public opinion, it undercuts confidence that the chain of events leading to this point was all fact-based.

But speaking as a federal employee, there are two other things that come into play.

The 1st is relatively minor. Consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations, Our Departments publish ethics rules for use of government property, including phones & computers. They include provisions for personal use that is authorized by supervisors (usually by office policy - not on a call by call basis) that is reasonable in duration and frequency at negligible expense. Use that would bring discredit (usually along the lines of pornography, gambling, illegal activities) are prohibited. 10,000 texts, using the phones to enable an affair and the content itself probably all cross the lines.

More serious are Hatch Act issues. Civil Service employees have restrictions relative to partisan activity - mostly restricting activity while on duty. Career SES, Administrative Law Judges and employees of 16 specific organizations (mostly law enforcement & intelligence - the FBI is included) have further restrictions that apply off duty as well. What is permitted to both groups is, "May express opinions about partisan groups and candidates in partisan elections while not at work or using official authority." In this case, it's not whether they were using their government phones, but whether they were on duty or while using their authority.

I know a few people who buy into the deep state conspiracy theory. I still don't buy it, but Strzok & Page haven't helped that discussion.

[dhol82]

18. Have a problem seeing this as Partisan Activity.

The girlfriend was upset, he tried to console her.
Where is the ‘partisan’ activity?

On another note, can we do a FOIA search of the FBI to find somebody expressing anti Hillary thoughts?

[24601]

20. That's the difference between motive and intent. Regardless of motive, there really isn't much doubt

that both Strozk and Page during work hours intended to express an opinion about a candidate in a partisan election. They can do that while off duty, but not while getting paid. And that's not hard to determine - unlike the military or Presidential Appointees on the EX Scale, GS and Senior Executive Service employees aren't paid by salary regardless of duty hours. Federal pay periods are 80 hours over 2 weeks. We submit time sheets that document actual times in and out.

I've done a lot of things over 45 years; however, my FOIA experience is limited to mandatory annual training and searching our records for responsive documents per direction from the folks that run our FOIA office. Generally there are exceptions - some specifically covering the FBI and nine exemptions which include deliberative process and personal privacy. I've never been in position that applies the exemptions and couldn't give a complete answer.

I do recall that FOIA doesn't apply to Congress, the Judiciary and most White House operations.

[RussBLib]

6. I'm glad he's coming forward

For Trump to pin so much on his few perhaps unwise emails is absurd. "We" won't let that happen, as in, the collective "we" meaning well-meaning Americans.

Still, I think no matter how clearly he explains it all, Trump will lie about it and go off in another direction, trolling and grifting his way.

GOP needs to try to remember their principles.

[Red Mountain]

13. I like his willingness to testify

It provides a nice counterbalance to the ever shifting lies of the administration.

NOBODY there puts it on the line.

[Julian Englis]

14. Lesson: You don't your government phone and email for personal use.

Corollary: You don't use private email and phones for government business, tRump and Pence.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Have a feeling his testimoney will make the GOP congress look stupid

Not that that's a hard task.