House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte on Thursday threatened FBI agent Peter Strzok with a contempt citation if he didn’t answer GOP lawmakers’ questions after Strzok said he couldn’t comment on anything that pertained to the ongoing Russia probe.
“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s directive to answer the question, or refuse to do so. The latter of which will place you at risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability,” Goodlatte said.
Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler fought back against Goodlatte’s hectoring, defending Strzok’s right to not answer certain questions.
The hearing then descended into chaos as Republican and Democratic lawmakers bickered over whether Strzok could consult his FBI lawyer and whether he had to respond to questions.
Earlier Thursday, Strzok told lawmakers that his work has never been tainted by politics and that the scrutiny he faces was “just another victory notch in Putin’s belt.”
Strzok, who helped lead FBI probes into Hillary Clinton’s email use and potential collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign, testified publicly for the first time since being canned from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team following the discovery of his anti-Trump text messages last year.
“I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” Strzok said.
He also directly addressed his anti-Trump texts to his FBI colleague Lisa Page, a lawyer for the bureau.
“Certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition for misguided attacks against the FBI, an institution that I love deeply and have served proudly for over 20 years,” he said.
“Like many people, I had and expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election. Many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country, opinions that were not always expressed in terms I’m proud of,” he said.
“Those opinions were expressed out of deep patriotism and an unyielding belief in our great American democracy. At times, my criticism was blunt, but despite how it’s been characterized, it was not limited to one person or one party,” he said.
But he insisted his opinions did not influence his work.
“Let me be clear. Unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took. This is true for the Clinton email investigation, for the investigation into Russian interference, and for every other investigation I’ve worked on. It is not who I am, and it is not something I would ever do. Period.”