House Hearing Gets Heated as Embattled FBI Agent Spars With Trey Gowdy

Things get testy as FBI Agent Peter Strzok defends his texts.

Embattled FBI Agent Peter Strzok addressed a joint hearing of two House committees on Thursday. Ron Sachs/CNP via ZUMA Wire

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

By the time Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) had finished with his questions for FBI Agent Peter Strzok during the opening salvo of a joint hearing on Thursday in front of the House oversight and judiciary committees, there was little love between Gowdy, who chairs the oversight committee, and the FBI investigator President Donald Trump has derisively called “lover boy” on Twitter.

Gowdy ripped into the embattled FBI agent for showing “textbook bias” in the texts he sent a department lawyer during the presidential campaign that mocked Trump. The tension boiled over during an exchange over the precise reason Strzok exited special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation last summer. Strzok, a former counterintelligence agent, led the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and had been part of the team looking into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. 

You can watch the heated exchange here:

Gowdy: And your testimony is Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your texts? He kicked you off because of some appearance he was worried about? 

Strzok: My testimony—what you asked and what I responded to—was that he kicked me off because of my bias. I am stating to you that it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias. It was done because of the appearance. If you want to represent what you said accurately, then I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.

Gowdy: I don’t give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok. I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.

The fireworks did not end there. Strzok used an opportunity at the end of questioning to fire back at critics who have cited examples of anti-Trump bias in his texts without noting the context. In an emotional monologue, Strzok revealed that a text he sent during the campaign suggesting “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president was written after Trump insulted the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier. 

Here’s how Strzok responded to Gowdy:

It’s important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America. In terms of the texts [that say], “We will stop it,” you need to understand that was written late at night, off the cuff, and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero. And my presumption, based on that horrible, disgusting behavior, that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States. It was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process—for any candidate. 

The hearing is currently ongoing. 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend