Peter Strzok Is a Sideshow to Information that Directly Implicates the President

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a public shaming of Peter Strzok, in yet another attempt to prove that the Mueller investigation is hopelessly tainted by Strzok’s belief — shared at the time by Republicans Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz — that Donald Trump is “an opportunist” who is “not fit to be President of the United States” and “Donald Trump can’t be trusted with common sense. Why would we trust him in the White House?”

But Strzok and his testimony is, in significant respect, a sideshow to evidence that directly implicates Donald Trump.

I say that based on the following information related to my own interview with the FBI.

  • DOJ probably used a clean team with me to ensure it shared nothing it already knew with me
  • Peter Strzok had no connection to my interview
  • Information I provided would change the importance of evidence otherwise obtained publicly

DOJ probably used a clean team with me

First, as I have suggested, I believe the team that interviewed me was a “clean team,” a prosecutor and FBI agents who weren’t centrally involved in the investigation I provided information on. I say that because the agents came into the interview with almost no information about either me or the person I was discussing.

My interview consisted of three sessions with two breaks. In the first session, the lead agent questioned me aggressively about a detail about the person I was discussing; he didn’t believe I had adequately vetted the detail. By the third session, however, he said something that suggested he had since confirmed the detail he had earlier challenged me on. From that I conclude that the FBI already knew of this person, but the agents who interviewed me did not.

I believe they didn’t know about me because, while the second agent seemed to know I would happily make small talk about cycling in northern Michigan, neither knew how well I know FBI surveillance (for the love of J Edgar Hoover, why would you put agents in a room with me without making that clear?). To be very clear: in the interview, they did not disclose anything I didn’t already know. But I did find myself citing information publicly available in the DIOG about the FBI’s rules on journalists to them. Given that that issue is one I’ve reported on more than virtually anyone else, I conclude they simply were unfamiliar with my work.

Peter Strzok had no connection to my interview

This point has gotten muddled, though I have tried to be very meticulous about it. As far as I understand things, I was not interviewed by Mueller’s team. Rather, I provided information to the FBI about a subject matter that was not part of the Mueller investigation at the time. One of the prosecutors who was in the loop on, but did not participate in, my interview was later incorporated into the Mueller team, and public reports say that one of the subject matters was as well.

Thus, whether my interview happened before or after Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team (remember I’m deliberately not sharing what date it happened), it doesn’t seem possible that he had any upstream or downstream involvement in it. So even if you believe Strzok tainted everything downstream of him, my information was neither up- nor downstream of him. It came into Mueller’s possession via a parallel stream.

Information I provided may have changed the importance of other publicly available information — information that implicates Trump directly

I apologize, but I’m going to be deliberately obscure on this point (and will neither confirm nor deny if I’m asked, as it’s not something I’ve run by the Mueller team). As I have said, I don’t think I was the first person to provide information on the person I went to the FBI about. I’ll add that this person has no discernible tie to Trump or the Republican Party. But I do think I was the first person to provide certain information about him that may have widened the scope of FBI’s understanding of the matter.

Subsequent to my interview with the FBI, I realized certain things about publicly available information. I’ve never shared that realization with the government, but it’s a realization they undoubtedly came to on their own from the same publicly available information.

And that realization I had and the government surely also had would have changed the importance of evidence Mueller received via means unrelated to Peter Strzok.

That evidence likely implicates the President directly.

Let me reiterate: when I went to the FBI, I did not believe this person had a direct tie to Trump or the Republicans at all and I know of none, still. The text about Mike Flynn is the only thing that provably suggested any tie (and that, only in conjunction with the Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn corroboration of it — at the time I received it I thought it was bullshit).  Any suspicions I had about a tie between information I had — and understood — when I went into that interview with the FBI and the Trump team would have been speculative and in any case tangential to the central point of what I went to the FBI about.

I believe that when the government had the same realization I had, the scope of their understanding about the person in question would have eventually expanded, though probably not as far as the information I provided may have. Which is to say the information that implicates the President in no way relies on my information, though my information would have made the import far more obvious. In any case, none of this comes from me. It’s just the evidence that is publicly available.

So tomorrow, as House Judiciary Republicans spend half the day or longer publicly flogging Peter Strzok, know that all that flogging cannot change the fact that key evidence in Mueller’s possession, evidence which I suspect implicates the President directly, has absolutely no tie to Peter Strzok at all. None. Tomorrow will be just one big giant show that in no way can alter the provenance of key, damning evidence in Mueller’s possession.

The Special Counsel’s office declined to comment for this post.

69 replies
  1. Trip says:

    Hurry up, Mueller, hurry up!

    Trump and the GOP are burning down the country; we don’t have time to fiddle.

    • mister bunny says:

      Yeah, I wish they would just subpoena the fool already. They must have enough into to run on, just considering the publicly available stuff. Obstruction is open and shut. ConFraudUS can’t be far behind it.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      No hurry up will happen. Now Ellis has legit reason to delay trial. So does Mueller.

      Special counsel Robert Mueller is asking a federal court in Virginia for 100 blank subpoenas in the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

      The request was made in a filing on Wednesday. The subpoenas would require their recipients to testify in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on July 25, when Manafort’s trial in Virginia is set to begin.

      No further information was provided in the filing, and a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment on the request.

      The request comes roughly a month after Mueller filed a request for 150 blank subpoenas.

      [Ya think they found more players with Manafort staying at the Northern Neck resort? Ya think?]

  2. Erin McJ says:

    How would your understanding of your meeting with them change if it turned out the FBI (or at least, the people you met with) were simply not that competent? Can you really be sure they understood the import of what you had to say? I understand that there’s probably a bunch you can’t or shouldn’t say, so I’m not asking expecting an answer, just want to make sure you’ve considered this angle.

    • Trip says:

      I was worried for a second (initially) that she spoke with the Giuliani arm of the FBI, for whatever reason, and that shit would get buried. But she has mentioned a few times that she has touched base with Mueller’s team, which means they are aware.

  3. Terry says:

    The best part of this post and all of your recent posts is that there’s real evidence that implicates Trump. Now we just have to wait for Mueller and hope that he can take the wraps off of everything before Republans can shut it down or Trump destroys the country.

        • RWood says:

          My two most favorite words lately have been “sealed indictment”.

          ETA: Indictment should probably be plural, but you get the picture.

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, it is fool’s gold to be waiting on sealed indictments. You never know, but I highly doubt it.

  4. jon b says:

    to the lawyers here. Assuming mueller has yet to call any of trumps family in for an interview, would they be used as a bargaining tool to get trump to testify. Or is mueller waiting for trump to refuse….then call Ivanka, don jr and Eric as a means to get him to rethink his decision. Or lastly is it because they are targets.

    • CLT Lawyer says:

      Just guessing, but the Family can tell whatever story they want with little threat from Mueller, and I’m sure they’ve constructed the “story” that they will all tell in the event they’re called. If they commit perjury, Daddy grants them immediate pardons for anything they’ve done prior to that date — which would take care of not only the perjury but any other federal crimes that they’d committed. There would be political blowback for the pardons, but they’d be more defensible (to his base at least) because they’re his kids than most of the other pardons he’s already issued. Obviously the pardons wouldn’t absolve them of state crimes, but those are separate matters unrelated to Mueller.

  5. Peterr says:

    The Special Counsel’s office declined to comment for this post.

    That phrase brings back memories of many a post during the Libby investigation. (Waves to Randy Samborn)

    Does Mueller even have a spokesperson on his staff?

  6. Peterr says:

    I believe they didn’t know about me because, while the second agent seemed to know I would happily make small talk about cycling in northern Michigan, neither knew how well I know FBI surveillance (for the love of J Edgar Hoover, why would you put agents in a room with me without making that clear?).

    There is, I suppose, such a thing as a Too Clean Team.

    But I did find myself citing information publicly available in the DIOG about the FBI’s rules on journalists to them. Given that that issue is one I’ve reported on more than virtually anyone else, I conclude they simply were unfamiliar with my work.

    I’ll go out on a limb here and say that you remedied that gap in their pre-interview preparation.  Did you simply quote from the DIOG, or did you give them the full citations?

    Every so often, I get a couple of fundamentalists who show up on my doorstep, who want to tell me all about Jesus. Most often, I simply mention that I’m a pastor and rather familiar with him which ends things pretty fast, but occasionally I’ll simply let them talk, dropping in my own comments and questions. Sooner or later, the penny drops, and one of them will figure out that I know more about the Bible than they do. The look on his/her face at that point is something else.

    Would I be wrong if I were to conclude that you observed a similar look on the FBI agent’s face(s) at some point during your chat with them?

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m going to tell the full story of my interview with the FBI in three years. For now I want to focus on the RU stuff.

      • Gamboler says:

        The agent’s WTF??? expression must have been priceless when you told him your source was Dennis Rodman. I know you can’t confirm or deny that.

    • Peterr says:

      To go back to the substance of the post, I suspect this dynamic also describes what your interview provided to the FBI. They sit there looking at the information already in their possession, and then you bring them something that makes them look at what they already had and say “Wait a minute . . . ”

      So tomorrow, as House Judiciary Republicans spend half the day or longer publicly flogging Peter Strzok, know that all that flogging cannot change the fact that key evidence in Mueller’s possession, evidence which I suspect implicates the President directly, has absolutely no tie to Peter Strzok at all. None. Tomorrow will be just one big giant show that in no way can alter the provenance of key, damning evidence in Mueller’s possession.

      Whatever information the Senate possesses, I suspect they agree with your assessment here. They are sufficiently convinced that this isn’t some gotcha game between Democrats and Republicans, and they are going increasingly bonkers when they see the Nunes et al. playing it exactly like that.

      I wonder if the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee assessment a couple of days ago was timed both to coincide with Trump’s visit to NATO and Putin as well as to take a backhanded slap at their idiotic GOP colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill.

      • emptywheel says:

        I don’t know that SSCI has what I have. They’ve steered very clear of substantive parts of the Mueller investigation and while I’ve tried to share some of this with one of the members of the committee, the prohibition to have cleared staffers speak to journalists is strong enough they weren’t comfortable doing that.

  7. Bob Conyers says:

    This is one hell of a story, and I hope a book contract comes out of it when the time is right.

  8. Frank Probst says:

    Until the hearing actually happens, I think it should be considered an ATTEMPTED public shaming of Peter Strzok. I’m not at all convinced that they can pull it off. He’s going to be far more prepared than anyone questioning him. Granted, both sides will be playing to their bases, and much of this is simply going to be two parallel press conferences, but I’m not convinced that anyone will score a direct hit here.

  9. stethant says:

    “That evidence likely implicates the President directly.”

    Found this blog after a piece you wrote in the NYT – your work is easily worth as much as my paid subscriptions to the MSM sites. I have no background in national security, law, or politics so I’ll just say I donated and leave it at that. Please don’t let off the gas.

  10. Frank Probst says:

    OMFG.  Manafort was sending e-mails from jail via a laptop that was shuttled in and out of the facility by his lawyers?  I don’t even know what the remedy to that is.  Do any of the lawyers know what Mueller and/or the judge can do in response to this?

    • harpie says:


      Mueller’s prosecutors spill ALL the details about Paul Manafort’s life in jail. -Says he’s treated like a VIP    – Gets laptop + extension cord to work on his case – Using a laptop from his lawyers and hundreds of calls to chat with people outside jail – Doesn’t wear a jumpsuit


      “think about how it’ll play elsewhere…” -Manafort to an unknown interlocutor in a taped prison call, talking about being tried by a DC jury first, June 20, 2018


      Sort of distracted but my golly what a dumbshit is Paul Manafort.

      The document:

      [p4, footnote 5:] Although the jail does not allow prisoners to send or receive emails, Manafort appears to have developed a workaround. Manafort has revealed on the monitored phone calls that in order to exchange emails, he reads and composes emails on a second laptop that is shuttled in and out of the facility by his team. When the team takes the laptop from the jail, it reconnects to the internet and Manafort’s emails are transmitted.[…] [p5] That other reasons may account for this application is strongly suggested by a prison call in which Manafort discusses going to trial first in the D.C. Case and contends to the listener (who did not believe the D.C. venue was favorable) that the listener should “think about how it’ll play elsewhere….There is a strategy to it, even in failure, but there’s a hope in it.” Phone Call of Manafort (June 20, 2018), at 4:02-4:39. […]

      • arbusto says:

        WTF is Manafort’s team(lawyers) about? Seem to like making motions (INAL) without supporting law and reversing requests.  Whether the “Team” edits Manafort’s emails or not, aren’t they legally exposed now?  I’d think Ellis might put the Team  on a short leash.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:


      As I have pointed out at least twice previously, the Northern Neck facility is a Securus facilty, which means that all phone calls are recorded.

      That is public information.

      Now, queueing up emails that can be walked out on a laptop, is just fucking brain-dead stupid.

      The fact that they even allowed the laptop in should have been an huge tell to Manafort. He should, if he had any sense, to be suspicious.

      So, what has likely happened by this point in time, is that NSA and FBI have correlated the phone calls with the emails.

      The Manafort lawyers likely put the laptop on internet within next 12 hours, and emails where exchanged with upstream email servers.

      And, bingo They know the emails that were exchanged that likely tie to recent phone calls.

      We still do not know how Manafort can be paying for his sharp legal team.

      But we now know Manafort being at Northern Neck is no longer needed. His presense there has provided good ‘stuff’ to NSA and FBI via the Metadata.

      Hence Ellis now saying Manafort must be moved to Alexandria.

      • bmaz says:

        This is just batshit. It has nothing to do with “metadata”. it does about maybe, maybe, 5% of the time you cry that shit. What in the living fuck are you smoking and/or mainlining?

        • Desider says:

          I think he’s just saying feds can track and correlate header and IP/SMTP and such to tie together inhouse conversations with (not quite) foldered emails – incl possibly providing more evidence against others [cuz I don’t think they need more on Paul].

          A while back people were complaining that Manafort unfairly got to walk around, and I noted that this was a good thing, as he keeps moving the body and providing more tells. Even in lockup.

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Yep. Signature info can ‘leak’. Does not matter if one is on a LAN, using VPN or TOR, a signature can leak that is tied to a specfic computer (laptop, desktop, phone – does not matter).

          Moving the computer around to different routers does not change the signature of the computer.

  11. harpie says:

    Marcy retweets Jeremy Herb:
    [quote] 3:16 PM – 11 Jul 2018 Goodlatte announces in new letter he’s giving Lisa Page two options to comply with subpoena: a Friday closed interview or appear with Strzok in public tomorrow. If she declines both a contempt markup is likely Friday [end quote]
    and links to this post, saying:
    [quote] Reupping: Peter Strzok Is a Sideshow to Information that Directly Implicates the President (So is Lisa Page) / I’ve informally offered to brief HJC cleared staffers about some of what I told the FBI. I’m going to make a more formal offer shortly. / FWIW, I’ve had one Republican take me up on an offer to learn more about what I told the FBI. I think I’ve got a second (significant) one — working on scheduling. Happy to speak with whatever House Republicans have shown good faith concern abt RU attack or cleared staffers.[end quote]

    • harpie says:

      …Recently came across this because of the Kavanaugh nomination:

      #Kavanaugh voted to allow FBI agents to detain & interrogate overseas a U.S. citizen, w/out due process of any kind. My NYT op-ed on the case:

  12. Drew says:

    I have it on good authority that the Special Counsel’s press office is extremely competent and friendly to journalists. Things that are available, they supply or point to efficiently. Most of the time, they have a million friendly, good humored ways, to say, “You know, we can’t talk about that” or “That information won’t be available until it is released.”

  13. Charles says:

    Speaking of people who might not have direct ties to Trump or the campaign, Prof. Kimberly Martens has a useful post on Lawfare regarding semi-state actors [1]. What’s striking is how similar the situation is in the US. The lines between government, corporations, and–to some degree–criminal organizations have become so blurred that it’s hard to say that “the Russian government” or “the Trump organization” did such-and such.

    Marten doesn’t recognize the parallel between the Wagner Group and Blackwater/Xe/Academi, and other US parallels to her comment that “the Kremlin even seems comfortable with the fact that these semi-state actors often have distinct commercial interests, separate from the Russian state.” In that way I think her article falls short.

    But it really goes to show that the attack on our election seems to have come from overlapping interest groups rather than discrete entities. That might explain the multiplicity of approaches to the Trump organization, of hacking attempts, of attempts to find outlets for the publication of material, and so on.

    And it might even explain why someone who seemed not to have “had a direct tie to Trump or the Republicans at all” was part of the overall effort.


  14. Trip says:

    emptywheel‏ @emptywheel

    I’ve informally offered to brief HJC cleared staffers about some of what I told the FBI. I’m going to make a more formal offer shortly.

    3:30 PM – 11 Jul 2018

    Marcy, don’t you think they want to know because they want to see all of the info Mueller has on Trump? This way they can discredit it, distort it, begin to attack you as unreliable, and so on?

    Is what you have, or know, actually classified info? Wouldn’t the FBI or some other alphabet soup have already briefed them on it?

    I’m not sure this is a great idea. These are not normal times.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      To me, there’s the idea that she wouldn’t do this if she didn’t think they already knew whatever it is. Odds are the fake source has already talked to the bad side. Maybe, possibly she wants them to know that it’s out there in places where it can’t be covered up. Who knows, maybe there’s a gambit being played where she wants to take away deniability? Shake loose some potentially sympathetic people on the other side?

      Whatever it is, I’m sure there’s a lot going on in the background that we don’t know yet. She’s said she’s reviewed some of what she’s written here with the feds to make sure it doesn’t ruin their work, and I’m sure there have been plenty of other consultations with legal people and others we don’t know about.

      Which doesn’t mean there are no risks in talking to the GOP, but I would guess there’s a lot of thinking behind the offer.

      • Trip says:

        I’m sure she has deliberated long and hard on this idea. I just felt the need to toss some flare guns up with rhetorical questions.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Anything one knows may already be classified.

      And you or anyone else may not even be aware.

      There is so much mundane stuff that is classified.

      Subcontractors ‘doing their jobs’, doing busywork, to make it appear they are doing ‘something’.

      It is really a mess.

      Here is something that is super-duper top-sekrit

      Checyr pngf qb abg rng engf

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        NADLER: Mr. Chairman, you know — or we all know that if we were to ask a question of a witness about a military secret. If we were to ask them, how does the H-bomb work, he could not answer that question.

        [Yet, Trip, I’m sure that you and me both know the answer to that question. Even though classified, we know. At the same time, just because we know does not mean that we would give that knowledge to potentional terriorists dogs like June Bug]

        [The point: Congresscritters should *NEVER* ask a question in a *PUBLIC* hearing when they *KNOW* the answer is classified]

  15. Rocketgoldstar says:

    I’m thinking this is someone tied to Assange/Wikipedia. Hacking skills, sophisticated knowledge of intelligence sources and methods, publicly known, but the Syria text revelations expanded the implications of a potentially tighter than known Trump connection. Someone with Israeli intelligence connections would also fit, although it’s hard to think of anyone in that field who would have been in the public arena vis a vis the Mueller probe.

  16. obsessed says:

    >”That evidence likely implicates the President directly.”

    In light of this statement, I’d be very curious to know how your top line assessment of the danger to the Trump Administration has changed since your January 2018 conversation with Robert Wright.

    In other words, when you say–as you did twice in this post–“implicates the President”, are you at liberty to tell us what it is that it implicates him in?

    And of course, as always, endless thanks for your courage and perseverance.

  17. Dedalus says:

    Has Marcy clarified, or can she clarify, why someone “in” on the collusion furnished her information on the Flynn meeting?    It appears to go against the conspirators’ interests to divulge that, and doesn’t appear to make sense.

    • Trip says:

      A propagandist or disinformer gives some element of truth to make it believable. Maybe they are an internal rival of Flynn. Why do Trump insiders rat on each other?  Why do fools fall in love? Why do birds sing so gay? And lovers await the break of day? why do they….sorry got carried away.

    • greengiant says:

      I don’t have too many clues but here are some obvious possibilities. Mal actors always want to take out the investigative reporters who aren’t bought. If not take them out then make them useful fools. First feed them bona fide information. Then feed them something that they can be sued for libel for or whatever narrative they want out there. EW does not go for single source material. Harder to take out than Dan Rather. Guessing she has already been attacked with multiple sourced material.

      The end is not Putin Syria or pipelines or nukes in KSA. The end is to get the administrations, congress and courts to be so publicly gonzo crazy the very institutions of the US are in play.

      Also there is always a “B” team. How many kinds of A-bombs did the US drop on Japan?

    • Willis Warren says:

      Sounds like an acquaintance was bragging.  Marcy wasn’t always keen on the Collusion angle.  She was very critical of the “resistance” from the beginning.

      Which is why I have so much respect for this blog.  Her work has followed organically and she’s been honest throughout the process of forming her opinion.


  18. Drew says:

    First, it is quite clear, as you say that the whole Strzok hearing is a sideshow by the inept PR seeking Republicans in Congress. Second, it is clear that you have good reason for being obscure on the issue of your conversations with the FBI etc. and you are perfectly right in doing so.

    However, there is another thing in this that it seems to me that you may not be fully appreciating, Marcy. That is how much smarter and better informed you are in your specialty than the rest of humanity. When you refer to information that is “publicly available” it is often not stuff that can be googled until you post it on your blog–indeed it often requires deep knowledge to know that such things are public information. But more importantly, your mind quickly connects dots in this obscure information that others cannot see, let alone connect. This is actually why I read your blog.

    The problem I want to point out, is that there are perfectly smart people in the FBI and yea, even in the vaunted Office of the Special Counsel who aren’t as smart as you, or to whom it hasn’t occurred to look at the same combination of deeply buried “publicly available information.” So when you say, “it must have occurred to Mueller’s team”–I’m not so sure you’re not outsmarting yourself there.  Of course, with more information, you might convince me that I’m being overly skeptical, but that won’t be forthcoming for a while.


    • harpie says:


      Goodlatte is here now, colluding with Ron Desantis (who was most helped by RU interference in 2016) and Mark Meadows.

      • CaliLawyer says:

        I’m curious why Desantis has never been prosecuted for receiving stolen property under 18 U.S.C. § 2315.

  19. Bruce Korb says:

    This should be a surprise to nobody. At all. I follow Andy Biggs on twitter and all his factless hyperventilation make it clear: he (they) are just flinging mud.

  20. x174 says:


    kool stuff. what primarily concerns me is whether or not your rare and highly informed voice will be neutralized (which already seems to be happening to some extent).

    since the bush ii maladministration, so many vibrant and necessary voices and websites have vanished. glenn greenwald at the intercept is a case in point. before he began working there he was such a vital part of the critical information flow by promptly digesting and clearly articulating the onslaught of daily mis/information then available.

    i just hope that your voice hasn’t been so compartamentalized that everything that you say from now on has to be said in half whispers.

    this is not a very recent thought. i considered this from the first i was awakened to the larger role that you may have played. what i immediately wondered was whether or not you were being played.

    not sure if you can respond openly about this possibility but we are definitely suffering from sustained attrition of cogent critiques of crucial information from curious minds such as yours.

    good luck with all of your much needed work and all of these complicated spy-vs-spy maneuvers

  21. Charles says:

    Perhaps this is merely mastery of the obvious, but I think the American people are satisfied that Peter Strzok ate the House Judiciary Committee for lunch today—and Trey Gowdy and Louis Gohmert were his dessert.

    I am looking forward to the day when Robert Mueller III finishes his investigation and reports the results to the American people.  I am hoping that a long list of charges will be brought against Mr. Trump.  The one I am most hoping for is several counts of Conspiracy with a Foreign Power Against the United States.  I hope whatever realization you had about this person you pointed the FBI to and the evidence it brought into better focus will result in such charges going Trump’s way.  Personally, if Trump did indeed commit crimes, I want him to be legally expelled from the White House, and I want him to spend the rest of his life in a federal prison—with no access to Big Macs or McDonald’s fish sandwiches.

    I am a long-time student of American archaeology and history.  I cannot recall another American president that has done as much damage to the United States as Trump—except maybe for Jefferson Davis in his role as President of the Confederate States of America.  But hey, even Jefferson Davis had a better sense of balance and demeanor than Trump.

  22. bernard says:

    This reminds me of the time Ali Chalupa got the whole Russian hacking narrative going. Is she your unnamed source?

  23. Danno says:

    This is increasingly resembling a lawyer’s drinking game where only one person remains sober and all the drunkenness inducing indiscretions happened long ago.

    Which means, no Marcy, you didn’t wait a year to write about Peter Strzork. But as you simply could not believe the contamination (upstream or downstream) theory, you really could have nailed the evidence a bit more clearly.

    Thursday’s insanity will live in infamy.


Comments are closed.