Food Fight Among Both Sides Of The Aisle In The US Congress On July 12th Was Off The Charts

Image result for photo of peter strzok

The mudslinging today on the 12th of July 2018 on the part of the GOP members in attendance at the joint committee hearing between the US House Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, towards the FBI agent Peter Strzok who had been exposed for having penned anti-Trump tweets, was off the charts. But Mr. Strzok had been removed from the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe around July 2017.

It started off with the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-06) ordering the FBI agent Peter Strzok, under the threat of a criminal contempt charge, to answer the committees’questions in full even if the questions pertained to the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. Of course Mr. Strzok refused to answer any inquiry that would reveal information pertinent to the FBI’s investigation.

Image result for photos of House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok

Mr. Strzok kept attempting to explain that every one who works anywhere has political opinions but they leave these beliefs behind at the door of their place of employment. But he was frequently shouted and lectured at, throughout the interview.

After watching this fiasco, it is no wonder that the US Congress has a 19% favorability rating with the American public.

The GOP members on the committees were determined to establish in the minds of the president’s base that FBI agents were so biased to where they would create trumped-up charges against President Trump, so that whatever the FBI’s findings end up being revealed regarding its Trump-Russian probe wouldn’t be credible to the president’s supporters.

Here is the rest of the story…

On July 12, 2018, Philip Bump of the Washington Post penned the following report, “Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity of the Russia investigation’s origins”


“To hear President Trump tell it, FBI agent Peter Strzok was hopelessly biased against him and his candidacy. Trump has tweeted criticisms of Strzok repeatedly, often in personally disparaging terms, and on at least two occasions has suggested that Strzok’s involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election had a specific goal: preventing him from becoming president.”

Image result for photo of peter strzok

“Strzok was a central player in the dueling investigations during the 2016 campaign. He was involved in the initial investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and opened the investigation into possible connections between Trump’s campaign and the Russian effort to influence the election’s outcome. He was subsequently involved in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s continuation of that investigation until Mueller learned of texts Strzok sent to Lisa Page, another FBI employee with whom the agent was engaged in an extramarital relationship. Those texts included some disparaging Trump in stark terms, prompting Mueller to remove him from the effort last July.”

“Trump has highlighted those texts as evidence that the investigation into him is biased for months. The president retweeted a particularly significant one last month.”

View image on Twitter

FOX & friends


IG REPORT BOMBSHELL: Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok texted his lover Lisa Page “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president

Image result for photos of House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok
Peter Strzok
“Two weeks later, in another tweet, Trump quoted Fox News’s Andrew Napolitano, asking if there was “a conspiracy in the Obama Department of Justice and the FBI to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President of the U.S.” — a conspiracy with Strzok at its center.”

“If there was such a conspiracy, of course, it didn’t work. Trump is president and, before the election, there was barely a public whiff that any investigation even existed. If Strzok’s idea was to “stop” Trump from becoming president, it was a spectacular failure.”

Peter Strzok talks to an aide as he waits for the start of a hearing on oversight surrounding the 2016 election. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

“In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.”

“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

“This is a nearly impossible point to rebut.”

“Before Election Day, there were rumblings that Russia was engaged in the campaign in nefarious ways and that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to see Trump win. There were rumors — theories, really — that Trump was more than happy to have Russia’s help or even might be aiding that effort. In the closing days of the campaign though, the two most important stories about the Clinton and Trump investigations were ones that solely worked to the eventual winner’s advantage.”

“On Halloween 2016, the New York Times detailed what was known about the investigation into Russian interference (an effort addressed earlier that month in an unusual public statement from the government). The headline, though, summarized the good news for Trump’s effort: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”

Image result for PHOTOS OF Peter Strzok,

“None of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” the article read. Since Trump was inaugurated, of course, we’ve learned much more about links between the campaign and Russia — involving even members of Trump’s family. The effect of the story, though, was to quash those rumors about Trump’s motivations.”

“The other important story seemed, at the time, much bigger. A few days before the article above, former FBI director James B. Comey revealed that the FBI was looking at emails involving Clinton found on former New York representative Anthony Weiner’s laptop. A few days later, Comey announced that his initial evaluation of Clinton’s behavior remained unchanged even with the new evidence — but the damage was done. The announcement is often cited as the difference-maker in the close election results.”

“An important detail: The initial draft of the letter Comey sent to Congress to inform them of the new emails was reportedly written by Strzok.”

Link to entire report: Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity

Find Your Representative · – U.S. House of Representatives

TO FAX:  Resistbot will do it all for you. Text “RESIST” to 50409 or message Resistbot on Facebook and it will walk you through the steps to fax your Senator and will tell you when your fax has been delivered.



Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-06)

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI-05)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21)
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH-01)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-49)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA-04)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-04)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX-02)
Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA-10)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC-04)
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID-01)
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA-09)
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL-06)
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO-04)
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX-04)
Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL-02)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL-01)
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA-04)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05)
Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL-04)
Rep. Karen Handel (R-GA-06)
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA-12)


Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY-10)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Rep. Hank Johnson, Jr. (GA-04)
Rep. Ted Deutch (FL-22)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep. Karen Bass (CA-37)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Rep. David Cicilline (RI-01)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Rep. Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-08)
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07)
Rep. Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Rep. Val Demings (FL-10)


  1. Gronda, the purpose was not to listen but to publicly rebuke. But, here is the question to be asked. Mueller realized the perception concerns over Strzok’s emails and removed him from his team eleven months ago after only getting started two months before. Is that not what he should have done? To me, this reinforces the integrity of the investigation. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Dear Keith,

    The good news is that their plan to publicly humiliate the FBI through the agent, Peter Strzok’s backfired and they were as the GOP on the US House Committees, the ones who looked like the incompetent biased jerks that they are. The president’s base voters are the only ones who’ll see what happened in a different way.

    Peter Strzok messed up with those tweets which the GOP want to useas the pivot point for their conspiracy theories but otherwise, he did well at the hearing in backing the FBI.

    Hugs, Gronda


      • Gronda, I find not surprising that Rudy now wants Mueller to resign after yesterday. That is funny as I told the Congressional staffers that Mueller did recognize the perception issue eleven months ago and had Strzok removed from his team.

        But, the more interesting thing is the 12 additional indictments of Russians who hacked the DNC data base. I also found of interest that Trump, who had been briefed on the pending indictments, said earlier today that the Mueller investigation still was a witch hunt and making it harder to deal with Russia. To me, Trump is saying “I am guilty.” Keith

        Liked by 1 person

      • DearKeith,

        Thanks for taking the time to do this What these representatives did will not go down well in the history books. It isn’t up there with the McCarthy hearings but its close.

        I have been reading the latest indictments issued today by the DOJ. It is a humdinger. You have to read it.

        The GOP will have a tougher time arguing that the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe is a “witch hunt.”

        Hugs, Gronda


        • Gronda, I have tried calling Ryan, Jordan and Meadows today regarding the insane attempt to impeach Rosenstein. This is beyond embarrassing for the GOP to save Trump’s bacon and their own hide. They are drowning and know it. The GOP recognizes if Mueller starts indicting more Americans like Stone, Kushner and Junior, that will spell doom. To be honest, the GOP deserves this mess for making a deal with the devil. Eventually the lies become apparent and their boss lies more than he does not. Keith

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Looks like a reverse witch-hunt against the FBI, in an attempt to stop the witch-hunt against the President, lol. Oh what a tangled web we weave. You’re so right, this verbal food fight is straight out of Animal House!
    This fiasco is all for show, at the behest of the President to sidetrack his own problems.


  4. Dear 1EarthUnited,

    Well this time it was the GOP’s attempt to humiliate the FBI agent Peter Strzok and by proxy, the FBI, backfired where they came out looking incompetent and out of control.

    With the recent US justice department’s indictments where the prosecutors indicted specific Russian operators as part of the GRU, these GOP members can no longer credibly argue that the FBI’s Trump-Russian probe is a “witch hunt.”

    Hugs, Gronda


    • Or just the opposite, the GOP can now double down with the witch-hunt rhetoric b/c indicting Russian GRU is not sufficient proof. Here are a few social media comments I’ve monitored that’s food for thought:

      NETWORTH5 hours ago
      It’s a meaningless indictment. These are Russian nationals. They will not be extradited. They will not appear in court and not provide a defense. Mueller will never have to produce “evidence” of their guilt (and he knows it). These indictments are purely for show.

      NETWORTH2 hours ago
      @Norman. An grand jury indictment is not proof of anything. It’s the equivalent of “probable cause”. It is not a “preponderance of the evidence” or “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”. Mueller knows this case will NEVER go to trial and that he will NEVER have to prove evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone. Long before this indictment it was already the opinion of the gov’t that Russia tried to influence the election. If anything, this indictment shows Obama as a feckless, spineless President who was repeatedly warned about Russian interference (including by Trump) and arrogantly dismissed it as a threat that “no serious person” could believe.

      NETWORTH2 hours ago
      @yahho. Trump wasn’t named in the indictment. Neither was the Trump campaign or family. In fact, Rosenstein stated that NO Americans were involved in this effort. None. Trump wasn’t even in gov’t when this happened. You should be mad at Obama for not taking the threat seriously.

      Wolfgang McLopez2 hours ago
      America has a history of interfering in other countries’ elections. Amazing how hypocritical we are when we think another country tries to influence ours. But even if Russia interfered — what did they do that was illegal? Go on social media and pretend to be Americans? Where’s the law that says people can’t pretend on social media, or that foreigners can’t post about another country’s candidates?

      TodG2 hours ago
      It has already been shown that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. This could only happen if someone inside the DNC offices used something like a USB drive to offload the data. Assange has already stated he obtained the data from someone inside the DNC, he offered to testify here as to the same but Mueller’s team put a stop to it. But keep believing the deep state flunkies who think a new world war is a great money making opportunity.

      Bongo Starr2 hours ago
      Meuller didn’t think the other Russian Nationals that were indicted would ever show up in court, either. But, their lawyers did. And they demanded to see the evidence against their clients. And Mueller said no, violating the defendants’ Constitutional rights. Which proves this is all a show.

      Johnny!2 hours ago
      Parts of this story are inaccurate. Nobody stole userIDs or hacked into anything. John Podesta freely gave away the password to his email system by phishing at an amateur skill level. Hacking requires a level of skill. For that matter, so does stealing, but a simple email spoof to John Podesta asking for his password was enough to bring us to this. (Disclaimer: I’m not in favor of the Orange Mess either).

      Bill4 hours ago
      So now, the Mueller investigation has charged 25 russians and 3 Russian companies in connection with the 2016 elections. No Americans have been charged with collusion or any other criminal activities in regard to the election. Yes Several people have been charged with lying or various other illegal activities that came to light during the investigation, but none of those charges were in regard to the collusion investigation. Obviously none of the Russians are ever going to go to court, we do not allow trials in absentia so time to wrap this up.

      Doneatforty is a FRAUD2 hours ago
      Isn’t it interesting how we all KNOW that the DNC servers were hacked by the Russians but when the FBI wanted to examine them, they told the FBI to get lost. Just how does that work exactly? Could YOU get away with that? And what is the DNC hiding?


      • Dear 1EarthUnited,

        There is so much disinformation provided in the references you’ve provided except for those who want to see how Russian trolls and the right wing zealots are feeding off each other. For the conservative point of view read something reputable, like the “Weekly Standard.”

        And then read the indictment. This is important because what FBI Special Counsel is doing, is just laying out the most basic outline using the least amount of facts to where he could file charges based on a Grand Jury indictment.

        Mr. Mueller is competent and professional. He has the goods. There is a reason that the GOP on the US House Committees are acting unhinged and desperate when they questioned the FBI agent Peter Strzok. They know what’s coming.

        I respectfully have to disagree with your analysis.

        Hugs, Gronda


        • Thanks for taking the time to clarify your thoughts. Like i said, I’ve been monitoring the chat boards and this is far from being an objective analysis. I merely mentioned that these few comments brought up valid discussion points. I never said I agreed with them or they were factually correct.

          The most recent Russian indictments do seem politically motivated, released just before Trump visits Putin could not be a coincidence. I think the FBI did the right thing, to maximize leverage, you must prepare the President to fight for something, and not simply give away the farm!

          I pray to God your are right, that SC Mueller does have the real goods on Trump and/or his associates, which would lead to impeachment… that is the main objective i hope!


Comments are closed.