Strzok in Denial: Fired FBI Agent Denounces Durham Indictments For “Dog Whistles”

The indictments of John Durham has shaken up Washington recently as he laid out the critical role played by Clinton campaign associates in the creation of the Russian collusion scandal, including the inclusion of debunked but widely reported allegations. It is clear from the latest indictment why leading Democrats like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to kill the Durham investigation. None of that however prepared some of us for the response of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who called upon fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok to question the indictments. Strzok was fired at the recommendation of career investigators and has been cited as an example of the raw bias of key players in the Russian investigation. Yet, he was the choice of MSNBC to review the recent indictments and he did not disappoint in belittling the crimes alleged by the Special Counsel.

Maddow was one of the leading voices pushing the Russian collusion claims. She has not corrected her past statements or apologized for pushing the discredited claims. She was particularly assertive in touting the debunked Steele dossier.

On her Jan. 13, 2017, program, she stated:

“I mean, had the FBI looked into what was in that dossier and found that it was all patently false, they could tell us that now, right? I mean, the dossier has now been publicly released. If the FBI looked into it and they found it was all trash, there’s no reason they can’t tell us that now. They’re not telling us that now. They’re not saying that. They’re not saying anything.”

In March 2017, Maddow seemed eager to get people to just call the allegations facts. She invited Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) onto her show to highlight the 35-page dossier. She asked Schiff: “When you cited … that dossier, should we stop describing that as an uncorroborated dossier? Has some of the information of that been corroborated?”

Now Durham has detailed how the dossier was the product of the Clinton campaign, which long denied that it funded the dossier and only admitted the truth long after the election.

The response of Maddow was to invite one of the most biased and discredited figures in the scandal to cover the indictment.

Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.

On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Michael Flynn.  Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Michael Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws.  The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.”  The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”

That exchange is not as disconcerting as Strzok’s actions.  After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law.

Now that same fired official is holding forth on Durham, a prosecutor who has been widely praised as an apolitical and unbiased investigator. Strzok declared “I’m certainly concerned when I read these indictments, both Mr. Sussmann’s and Mr. Danchenko’s… They have subtle dog-whistles to these kinds of pro-Trump conspiracy theories.”

Here is my favorite line: “The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele’s reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren’t able to disprove it either.”

No line better sums up Strzok’s approach to his work.

First, Durham details how, in 2017, the FBI was informed that the main source for the dossier (and the Page secret warrant) told them that they were “unsubstantiated” and misrepresented. The FBI was also informed that American intelligence believed that Steele relied on a known Russian agent and that the dossier may have been the vehicle for Russian disinformation. The FBI also knew that then-President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan on an intelligence report that Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.

Second, it is bizarre to note that allegations have yet to be clearly disproven. The allegations have been debunked to the extent that the key source has called them unreliable and little more than bar gossip. More importantly, the issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to launch (and continue) the investigation.

Strzok also notes that Mueller was able to nail the national security advisor. However, Mueller prosecuted Flynn for false statements much like the Durham indictments. Mueller found no evidence to support charging of any Russian collusion crimes. Strzok seems stuck in denial and suggesting that somehow targets should effectively have to “prove the negative” — prove they are not secret agents of Russia.

I supported the appointment of the Special Counsel on the Russian collusion allegations after Trump fired James Comey. While I stated that the Russian collusion allegations were unlikely to be proven as crimes, I felt the public needed the assurance of an independent investigation. That is also why I supported the Durham investigation. Now that Durham is confirming that the Russian collusion allegations were engineered by Clinton campaign associates, there is a full court press in the media to downplay or ignore the underlying evidence.

The problem is that Durham does not appear to be done.

126 thoughts on “Strzok in Denial: Fired FBI Agent Denounces Durham Indictments For “Dog Whistles””

  1. I hope some honest journalist — if that species even exists anymore — will be writing a book about this. It’s a nail-biter!

  2. Would you not guess that Obama, not Strzok, ultimately ordered that the Flynn investigation be kept open? The next day a bunch of them met with Obama at the White House. Obama already knew about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak because Susan Rice had unmasked Flynn.

  3. Anonymous says:


    The House Select Committee on Jan. 6 has issued new subpoenas to:
    William Stepien
    Jason Miller
    Angela McCallum
    John Eastman
    Michael Flynn
    Bernard Kerik”


    I suspect Turley ignores the 1/6 committee investigation because it exposes the underpinnings of the Big Lie.

    Turley has said only that it was unwise for Trump to claim that the election was stolen as a tactical legal matter while his lawyers went to court to contest the election results. To this very day, Turley has never condemned Trump specifically for his false claim that the election was stolen. He has stated only that Trump’s 1/6 speech was- his word- “reckless.”

    Remember, his employer, Fox, is being sued for recklessly broadcasting liars claiming that the election was rigged. If Turley or anyone at Fox were to concede publicly that the election was never stolen that would be an admission against interest in the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s lawyers would immediately seize upon that admission and demand to know precisely when did they realize that the election was not rigged or stolen?

    WHAT exactly did the Fox producers and talk show hosts know and WHEN precisely did they know it will determine whether they acted with malice in defaming Dominion and Smartmatic.

    It does not help his employer’s legal defense if Turley makes any admissions about the election not being stolen nor encouraging the efforts of those in Congress attempting to discover the origins of that lie and how it prompted the 1/6 rioters to take matters in their own hands by trying to “Stop the Steal.”

    Was the attack on the Capitol a result of reckless talk as Turley would have you believe or part of a deliberate plan? Should the only ones being held accountable for attempting to stop the Electoral count be the gullible rioters fed the Big Lie or the politicians and lawyers behind it all? It would not surprise me if Fox executives are subpoenaed to explain their decision to broadcast this Trumpian defamation of the integrity of the Republican men and women who secured, counted and reported the election results.

    BUT FOR the election lies broadcast by the company for which Turley works and profits, the “desecration” of 1/6- as he described it- NEVER would have happened. That is a shame which Turley will have to live with for the rest of his hypocritical life.

  4. I’m not sure why some drunk Russian getting indicted for serially lying to the FBI would chap Strzok to such a degree. Perhaps one can only explain it by realizing that this disgraced former public servant needs to bring in money somehow.

  5. Dear Nancy, keep at it. With perseverance you will convert California into a Red State


    Pelosi Favorability Ratings

    ……………………………………………….Favorable………Unfavorable ……..Spread
    RCP Average 10/3 – 11/5…………………34.7……..………..58.2………………-23.5
    USA Today/Suffolk 11/3 – 11/5……………29…………………64…………………-35
    Economist/YouGov 10/30 – 11/2…………..39…………………54…………………-15
    Politico/Morning Consult 10/30 – 11/1…….33………………….58…………………-25
    Harvard-Harris…….10/26 – 10/28…………35………………….53…………………-18
    FOX News……10/16 – 10/19……………….37…………………60………………….-23
    Rasmussen Reports 10/3 – 10/4………35…………………60………………….-25
    All Nancy Pelosi: Favorable/Unfavorable Polling Data

  6. In 2008 Trump Scored Millions In Peculiar Sale Of Palm Beach Estate To Russian Oligarch

    Last year, the Palm Beach Post took a look back at one of Trump’s most extraordinary real estate deals. Trump somehow sold an oceanfront estate to a ‘Russian Investor’ for $30 million more than the property’s appraised value. These 3, brief paragraphs seem to tell the whole story:

    “Rybolovlev paid $95 million for the estate that Trump bought three years earlier for $41.3 million. That’s quite a mark-up, and more than $30 million higher than the property’s appraised value.

    It was the same year that Donald Trump Jr. told investors “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” And the year that Trump was facing another bankruptcy.

    Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operated three Atlantic City casinos, had amassed $1.74 billion in debts when it failed to make a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008. Two months later it sought Chapter 11 protection”.


    It was stories like this that put the spotlight on Trump’s dealings with Russians to any interested party back In 2016. If anything mainstream media was lazy in their reporting of these ties during that election year. Hillary’s emails garnered far more coverage in 2016.

    1. Your problem is that you don’t know how Palm Beach appraisers appraise values.

      The real value is what another is willing to pay. Loads of homes go for more than appraised value and $30 million extra is meaningless to those with endless amounts of money. You need to learn how to value property before you opine. Think about it, Trump paid about $10 Million for Mar a Lago. Lots of people refused to buy the property which was worth much more than what he paid.

      You should see the property and the building while looking at its location. Trump has vision. You do not.

    2. You are totally completely insane. And a traitor, You need to be Girmo’d like the rest of the scum. Selling property is not illegal moron.

    3. “In 2008 Trump . . .”

      When your PINO is crashing and burning — deflect, deflect, deflect.

    1. That’s the real problem. Government moves backwards when it’s not moving at a snails pace, it’s getting to the point where criminals can die of old age before they even get to court. Yeah that’s hyperbole but it sure seems like it.

  7. Except for the Civil Rights Division and a small handful of units, most Americans lost complete faith in the U.S. Department of Justice after it green lighted torture and war crimes – violating Ronald Reagan’s Treaty and US federal law. Those that refused to torture went to prison (ie: John Kiriakou) or were ruined. Those that green lighted torture were promoted, one is a federal judge standing in judgement of others. Americans view DOJ as a political agency.

    Maybe DOJ should correct that issue first before playing more politics. Most voters have no faith in DOJ. Reminder: no statute of limitations on war crimes!


    In the summer of 2016, when news stories first emerged linking Trump to Russians, I became curious and decided to do Google search to see what was out there. 90 minutes later I had skimmed numerous articles concerning Trump and Russians. Most of the stories were from business trade papers going back to the early 1990s. Some were highly intriguing.

    The point is that any amateur sleuth could have put together a dossier linking Trump to Russians from just a Google search alone. So this idea that the Clinton campaign manufactured the connections is a flat-out lie. Trump’s losses in Atlantic City put a huge dent in his inherited fortune. Trump therefore became highly dependent on so-called ‘Russian investors’ to keep the Trump Organization afloat.

    1. So this idea that the Clinton campaign manufactured the connections is a flat-out lie.

      Let me get this straight. You Googled your way to uncovering the crime of the century in the summer of 2016 and then what, you went into a coma and completely missed the mountain of evidence over the last 5 years proving those connections to be flat-out true? Bwahahahahahaha!

      1. Obese Olly, tell us why business trade papers kept publishing these stories in the 20 odd years leading up to 2016. When these stories first began Trump was best known as a playboy more than anything. So obviously the business press had no political agenda in putting these stories out.

        1. Hey amateur sleuth, what reason would business trade papers publish stories about a very public billionaire businessman possibly doing business in Russia? There’s a very good reason you earned the title Paint Chips.

        2. “When these stories first began Trump was best known as a playboy more than anything.”

          That is false and demonstrates an ignorance that prefers to be heard than to be right.

      2. Likely he gets his crack cocaine from the Clinton FUNDation, and hence needs to keep spinning for them or else be cut off from crack. Insert Dave Chappelle / Tyrone Biggums crack character here

      3. Wake up moron. This is a fact now. The Clinton scum are going down, deal with it.

      4. Turley says:

        “Mueller found no evidence to support charging of any Russian collusion crimes.”

        Turley is being disingenuous when he says there was not sufficient evidence of “collusion crimes.” Mueller was investigating a criminal conspiracy. Turley knows full well that collusion occurred by virtue of the undeniable fact that Manafort secretly met with, and handed campaign data to, Kilimnik, a Russian agent.

        If Turley were entirely honest, he would openly acknowledge that Manafort lied, Kilimnik was unavailable to testify and Roger Stone and Manafort both didn’t need to flip on Trump because they knew Trump would pardon them eventually.

        I will not trust Turley’s characterization of events until he submits himself to a debate with his nemesis Adam Schiff, or someone as well-versed in the facts, in order to challenge each other’s narratives. I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable of the facts to make a final judgment, but the fact that Turley has holed himself up in his Ivory Tower and has not taken questions or submitted to going on MSNBC or CNN I order to defend his positions against an interrogator, makes me think he is afraid to do so. You would expect he would welcome the challenge to prove his case unless his employment contract with Fox forbids his appearance anywhere but on its programs.

    2. Hey Anonymous, how do you get around The Washington Post, The NewYork Times and Politico Magazine all saying they got the RussiaGate story all wrong. You have often used these reporting agencies as your sources but now you disregard their mea culpas. One might assume your stance to be a reflection of your character.

    3. We have a loot of fiction writers on the blog. I just wish their writing was better.

      1. Anonymous, since you like to Google why don’t you Google the statements by the Washington Post about getting the Steele Dossier story wrong. You say I present fiction but you won’t take the time to see what the Post wrote about there incorrect coverage of the Dossier. This is your common answer when your bucket of knowledge has so many holes that it won’t hold water. Your so invested in your position that you just can’t bring yourself to see.

    4. This is a ludicrously stupid argument.

      You can do the same google search on clinton and get far more ties to Russia.

      Further while Trump’s ties will be to Russian business, Clinton’s will be to the russian governmnt and or oligarchs.

      Regardless the results of both searches are perfectly valid for the purposes of campaign attacks.

      But NOT a justification for the FBI to investigate.

      Trump’s ACTUAL ties to Russia are NOT particularly nefarious.

      The Steel Dossier alleges much more than just newspaper clippings for several decades.

      It alleges misconduct – particularly election misconduct.

      Lets try some examples.

      Can the FBI investigate someone for trying (and failing) to build a hotel in a foreign country ?
      For managing a beauty pagent in that country ?
      For having a close relationship with a pop star ?
      For selling condo’s in FL to Foreigners ?

      Even for allegedly hiring prostitues to pee all over the bed Obama purportedly slept in ?

      Not one of these is a legitimate basis for an FBI investigation even if true.
      But every single one of these can be used to attack Trump in a political campaign.

      It is not the collection of political dirt – true or false that is the Clinton Campaigns crime.
      IT is selling it to the FBI as criminal conduct justifying an investigation.

      The allegations in the Steel the core problem are those that are allegedly criminal.
      Those not merely proved false, but they did not show up in your google search prior to the steel dossier.
      They were all made up – not from news clippings, but from whole cloth – they were fabricated, lies.
      They were not even gosip.

    5. Then you should have zero problems demanding a special counsel to look into the Biden syndicate.

      We are well past google searches for evidence.

      And while you are at it you are going to appologize to Trump for impeaching him for trying to investigate the Biden’s conduct in Ukraine.

      As you have just told us that google search results are sufficient to jusify criminal investigations.

    6. Clinton was dependent on russian oligarchs to keep the Clinton Foundation Afloat.

      BTW no one has claimed that the Clinton campaign manufactured everything in the Steele Dossier.

      The manufactured everything that constitutes reasonable suspicion that there was collusion between Trump and Russia to tip the election.

      Russian connections are not crimes.

      Micheal Cohen going to prague to pay off russian hackers for hacking the DNC – that is a FALSE criminal allegation that was not found on google prior to the Steele Dossier. i.e. it is MANUFACTURED.

      Though AGAIN – it is not the collecting and manufacturing that is the problem – political campaigns do that.

      It is selling garbage to the FBI. Though the FBI is more culpable for buying it.

      And again when are you appologizing to Trump for impeaching him on far firmer foundations than this.

      A google search in 2015 WOULD have produced Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s misconduct in Ukraine.
      Even NYT reported on it when AGAIN Hillary fed it to them.

    7. In the summer of 2016, when news stories first emerged linking Trump to Russians, I became curious and decided to do Google search to see what was out there.
      Turley and lots of others have been documenting all the lies the media spreads. All the effort put forth to create and spread the (phony) narrative.

      But you ignore all the evidence and blindly quote media accounts to support your delude perception of reality.

Comments are closed.