Last week, on the heels of the release of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s (IG) report into just exactly what happened during the 2016 presidential campaign, Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building. Now, thankfully and probably a year or two too late, the rouge FBI agent, who had (at best) a disturbing bias toward President Donald Trump and (at worst) a vendetta against him that led to a half-baked plot to make sure he never saw the inside of the Oval Office, has had his security clearance revoked.
[Attorney General Jeff] Sessions, during an interview with conservative talk show host Howie Carr, revealed the measure was taken in the midst of an internal disciplinary review.
“Mr. Strzok, as I understand, has lost his security clearance,” Sessions said.
How’s that for anti-climactic?
Strzok has reportedly indicated he will cooperate and be questioned regarding his involvement with the Russia probe. He has indicated he would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. So, if you thought the IG report was the end of the game, go reheat the popcorn. The man who assured his lover that Trump would never be president, who lamented that he had unleashed the trouble leading to Trump by participating in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, the man who interviewed former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn that led to a strange resignation, will be doing some more talking about what he knows.
And remember: Strzok was a very influential and powerful counter-intelligence agent who had authority over both the investigations into Hillary’s email (also called the Midyear Exam) and the counterintelligence investigation into alleged influence by the Russian government in the 2016 election (also called Crossfire Hurricane.) The IG report also indicated that he stopped focusing on the former to concentrate on the latter.
His testimony should prove very interesting indeed. And as for his security clearance, it’s never a good thing to hand the keys to sensitive information to a person incapable of understanding his role is not one of choosing leaders — of usurping the will of the people — but of helping the leaders who are chosen effectively do their jobs by serving as an example of an unbiased protector of those same people.