According to the report of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Peter Strzok’s decision to prioritize the “Russia Investigation” over following-up on investigating Anthony Weiner’s computer was not free from bias.
However, Strzok’s bias or lack thereof is beside the point, as I will explain in a moment.
This video details how in late September 2016, Peter Strzok, then in charge of the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, actively avoided investigating Anthony Weiner’s laptop before the election. The computer had been seized by the FBI’s New York office in a separate investigation into Weiner’s sexting with a minor when 141,000+ emails between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin were discovered in it.
The New York FBI’s search warrant did not cover those emails, requiring an additional warrant from the FBI’s DC office in order to investigate these but the warrant wasn’t issued until a month later on October 30, 2016 – or one week before the election. When asked the reason for the delay, FBI officials, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page all gave excuses – all of which have been rejected by the Inspector General.
Not that Horowitz is so squeaky-clean, either. The IG’s focus on Strzok’s bias against Trump is just so much obfuscation, in light of the fact that it’s since been discovered that Strzok held a joint CIA/FBI position and answered primarily to former CIA director John Brennan – who clearly has it in for Trump. (One wonders who is pulling Brennan’s chain, with all of his carrying-on as a paid pundit on MSDNC)?
Thus, when Strzok testified that his bias didn’t “impact any official action [he] took,” he wasn’t perjuring himself. Strzok was simply following orders in a covert operation to cover up the crimes of Hillary Clinton and to frame and destroy Trump – an operation which continues to this day.
Further, members of the House Intelligence Committee who questioned Strzok were also careful not blow Strzok’s cover by framing their questions in terms of his “bias”, rather than by asking the questions that would have revealed his role in this very obvious (and treasonous) covert CIA operation.
How many of these people can get away with plausible deniability?