Peter Strzok's Wild MSNBC Segment Goes Completely off the Rails

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Now if MSNBC had any shame they wouldn’t have disgraced, fired former FBI official Peter Strzok on their network as a commentator. But of course, they have no shame, as they showed with the segment that they put on Monday featuring him.


Nicolle Wallace asks him if there should be an “IG look” at some of the “rumblings” at the FBI about Jan. 6 would be appropriate.

Strzok’s response was a festival of delusion. He claimed that the IG looked at how the FBI handled things over Clinton emails and Russiagate and “found no evidence, none, documental, testimonial or otherwise indicating there were improper motivations by anything the FBI did.” That gave a reassurance that we acted in a “professional” way, he claimed.

Is Strzok serious? Even the Washington Post blew that apart, noting the IG report said senior FBI officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.

The inspector general did not find evidence supporting assertions made by the president and his allies that political bias inside the FBI had rigged the case to clear Clinton, but the report cited numerous instances of unprofessionalism, bias and misjudgment that hurt the bureau’s credibility. In particular, the report singled out lead agent Peter Strzok as showing anti-Trump bias that could have affected his thinking on the case during the immediate run-up to the 2016 election.


Does Strzok remember that Kevin Clinesmith falsified a statement in an affidavit to get a FISA warrant against a member of the Trump team? The FBI also knew the Steele information was false, yet offered Christopher Steele a million dollars if he could verify it, while they were still using it in applications to get FISA warrants, knowing it couldn’t be verified.

Does Strzok think everyone forgot about those anti-Trump texts with his mistress Lisa Page? Or the “insurance policy”? That played a role in Strzok getting fired. He is now suing over that, claiming his privacy was violated and wrongful termination. The DOJ turned over a draft letter for his firing as part of their effort to rebut that. The guy who fired him, David Bowdich, let him have it in that letter.

Though the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence of bias impacted any of your or the FBI’s investigative actions or decisions, your sustained pattern of bad judgment in the use of an FBI device has called into question for many of the decisions made during both the Clinton e-mail investigation and the initial states of the Russian Collusion investigation. In short, your repeated selfishness has called into question the credibility of the the entire FBI. [….]

In my 23 years in the FBI, I have not seen a more impactful series of missteps which called into question the entire organization and more thoroughly damaged the reputation of the organization.


Strzok flipped out that some in the FBI might actually think that Jan. 6 was just a “riot that got out of control.” Listen as he seems to suggest that the FBI has to enforce the orthodoxy of belief, to make sure everyone is thinking what he/Democrats think about the incident.

Strzok equates questioning electors to the riot. If questioning electors was wrong, why did the Democrats do it in so many years before this? It’s built into the system.

There was also this hilarious take from Andrew Weissman, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top guy, who claimed that the FBI was “all over” the BLM riots, but “asleep at the switch” when it came to the Jan. 6 riot.

The FBI has barely done anything to go after many of the leaders and organizers of the BLM riots, which were not just “riots that got out of control” but frequently planned and organized events, as in Portland with the same people involved night after night for months, not just one riot. Meanwhile, they’ve arrested hundreds of people in regard to Jan. 6, even people who were just in the building. They even created a special page to help track people down.


Nicole Wallace claimed Jan. 6 was the “deadliest attack on the Capitol,” without noting only one person was killed in the riot and that was by a police officer. She also forgot/didn’t know/didn’t care about the 1998 shooting at the Capitol by Russell Weston, who shot and killed two police officers.

But there’s no doubt that the worst take of the insane segment was from Peter Strzok when he declared that “9/11 is nothing compared to January 6” and demanded that leaders “be on the same war footing.”

It’s scary that this person has such authority in the FBI. Saying something delusional like this is an insult to the families of all the victims who died or were injured on 9/11. How could anyone be so twisted as to even equate the two or say something like this?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos