Trump’s Latest Attack on the FBI Is Probably Bogus

What was Peter Strzok’s “media leak strategy” really about?

President Donald Trump

Brian Cahn/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Monday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) released some big news that, he suggested, undercut the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Meadows announced that Peter Strzokā€”the FBI agent recently fired over his anti-Trump text messagesā€”had mentioned a ā€œmedia leak strategyā€ in an April 10, 2017, text message to Lisa Page, a former bureau attorney.

Meadows, a top congressional backer of President Donald Trump, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that the texts suggest a “coordinated effort” by the FBI and the Justice Department to “release information in the public domain potentially harmfulā€ to the Trump Administration. Right-leaning media outlets, including Fox News, quickly jumped on the story. Trump tweeted about it Tuesday morning. ā€œSo terrible, and NOTHING is being done at DOJ or FBI,ā€ the president wrote.

Meadowsā€™ claim, however, may rely on major misinterpretation. Strzok and Page were actually discussing the administration’s strategy for stopping leaks, not plotting to cause leaks, according to Strzok’s lawyer and Democratic lawmakers. ā€œThe term ā€˜media leak strategyā€™ in Mr. Strzokā€™s text refers to a Department-wide initiative to detect and stop leaks to the media,” Strzokā€™s lawyer, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement Tuesday. ā€œThe President and his enablers are once again peddling unfounded conspiracy theories to mislead the American People.ā€

In a press release Tuesday, Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrats on the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, pointed out additional context that Meadowsā€™ letter ignored. Nadler and Cummings note that Strzok’s reference was part of a discussion about a meeting on proposed changes to the Justice Departmentā€™s media leak regulations. Strzok, whose job included combating unauthorized leaks, appeared worried that ill-considered changes to the policy would prove ineffective.

ā€œDoJ getting all political and about to blown (sic) up the media leak regs and turn this into a circus,ā€ Strzok wrote in a text sent earlier in the day to Page, the Democrats note. Strzok expressed a similar concern in another text, proposing that he and Page present concerns to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andy McCabe. ā€œ[I]f they are going to try to blow up the regs we need to get that to andy and d soonest,ā€ Strzok wrote. This suggests the ā€œmedia leak strategyā€ Strzok was discussing related to his attempts to protect the bureauā€™s existing anti-leak policy from what he saw as political interference from the Trump administration.

Meadows’ letter also asserts that Strzok congratulated Page on a ā€œjob well doneā€ after two articles appeared that disclosed classified information on the FBI investigation into former Trump campaign aide Carter Pageā€™s contacts with Russians. Marcy Wheeler, a national security blogger, theorizes that Strzok was talking about an effort to identify who leaked the Page information. But Strzok and Lisa Page may not have been talking about the Carter Page reports at all. Nadler and Cummings noted the compliment came in a string of texts that follow one stating, ā€œArticle is out!” That exchange may actually refer to “to a New York Times profile of Comey published on April 22,” Democrats say. It’s not clear if Page provided information for the article. That piece appeared the day the “well done” message was sent. The Carter Page articles came out 10 days earlier.

ā€œRepublicans in Congress repeatedly cherry-pick, mischaracterize, and then leak bits and pieces of documents to fabricate conspiracy theories to protect President Trump, and this is just the latest example,ā€ Nadler and Cummings argue in their release.

Asked Tuesday if Meadows stood by the assertions in his letter, a spokesman for congressman declined to comment.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate