A series of text messages released Wednesday reveal that former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok was in contact with reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post regarding stories they published about the FBI’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign during the spring of 2017, according to a series of texts obtained by SaraACarter.com.

The text messages suggest that Strzok, along with his paramour, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, had been in contact with reporters from both newspapers. Strzok specifically mentioned two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writer Michael Schmidt his text message to Page.

Strzok wrote, “Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.” (The New York Times did not respond immediately for comment. The Washington Post also did not respond immediately for comment.)

According to several U.S. officials who spoke to this news outlet, “Mike” mentioned in Strzok’s text message is Mike Kortan, the former FBI assistant director for public affairs who retired in February. “Andy” was in reference to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was fired earlier this year after it was revealed in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report that said he lied to investigators and leaked information to the media.

These series of text messages appear to contradict statements made by Strzok’s attorney, Aitan Goelman, after it was revealed earlier this week that Strzok and Page discussed a “media leak strategy” in some of their text messages. Goelman insisted, “the term ‘media leak strategy’ in Mr. Strzok’s text refers to a Department-wide initiative to detect and stop leaks to the media.”

Goelman’s statement came after President Trump tweeted about the newly revealed text messages and North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asking him to investigate the text from Strzok regarding the “media leak strategy.”

In light of the recent Strzok and Page text messages, Meadows has also asked Rosenstein to provide the committee with the opportunity “to review text messages, emails, and written communication form FBI and DOJ officials Stu Evans, Mike Kortan, and Joe Pientka between June 2016 to June 2017,” first reported here.

Meadows stated in the letter, “to be clear, we are not suggesting wrongdoing on the part of Evans, Kortan, and Pientka- and, in fact, previously reviewed documents suggest that some of these individuals may share the committees’ same concerns.”

On April 11, 2017, The Washington Post broke a story titled “FBI Obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump advisor Carter Page,” which contained detailed information that the FBI had obtained a secret court order to monitor Page, a short-term Trump campaign volunteer, in October 2016. The story, written by Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett and Adam Entous referred to unnamed U.S. law enforcement and other U.S. officials who told The Washington Post that the FBI and Department of Justice obtained the warrant on Page after “convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

However, in April 2017, former FBI Director James Comey had signed the third renewal on Page, according to reports. In June, Rosenstein would sign off on the fourth FISA warrant renewal application to allow the FBI to continue monitoring all of Page’s communications, which ended in September 2017, after the renewal expired.

“It may constitute a waiver of any reason for secrecy provisions that are part of a warrant application,” said criminal and civil rights attorney, David Schoen. “Under the rules of the FISA court, their disclosure to a third party should have been revealed to the FISA court. It’s a material fact that should be disclosed under the FISA court rules and besides all that it would certainly violate FBI rules. The question is why was he doing that? Why was he leaking it?”

Schoen believes there is no reason the FISAs should not to be declassified considering they were willing to leak the information to the Washington Post.

The Washington Post story also suggested that the FISA warrant on Page “is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump associate was in touch with Russian agents.”

Page, who has denied any wrongdoing and has never been taken into custody for the claims made by the FBI, said his life was turned upside down when his name was leaked to the media. He said he has also received death threats and his reputation was tarnished after former British spy Christopher Steele leaked parts of his unverified anti-Trump dossier to the media.

“Like I’ve said all along this is a complete joke,” Page told SaraACarter.com. “It’s not about me, they are just trying to undercut the Trump administration’s accomplishments.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798182)

Lest we forget, Strzok was the lead on the hilldawg email investigation that sat on her top secret emails being on a pedophiles laptop, interviewed Hillary about the matter at her personal residence off the record on a fucking Saturday and drummed up the bs charges against Flynn (with Yates).

Lol and he did this shit on a work cell phone.

You'd have to worry about libs if they weren't just so fucking incompetent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798798)

https://i.redd.it/2cjlyjdfnwl11.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798505)

*is CNN exec wondering why the only people who trust them are liberal boomers*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798548)

I can't fucking believe Sessions, Wray, and Rosenstein think the institutional reputation of DOJ/FBI is better served by sitting on their ass in defense mode, rather than aggressively scorching the earth taking all these fucks down.

We get a handful of texts every couple of months. Each time it gets worse and worse, but nothing happens. They can't even figure out how to charge McCabe in a reasonable amount of time with blatantly lying. Meanwhile, the MSM is in complete MUH Russia spin 24/7 to obstruct the Presidency.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798642)

I've been hopeful there has been some sort of grand plan all along but I'm really starting to doubt it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798797)

idk about a grand plan but i don't think nothing's happening. if they were playing for keeps and not publicity, we'd know what we know now, next to nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798958)

As much as I hate Mueller and Weissmann, at least they get shit done and file indictments. Yes, most are shams. But what we know about McCabe, Strozk, et al, is not complex shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798715)

Don't forget about the sham Cohen fiasco, and how SDNY is literally trying to create crimes through made-up testimony.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36798751)

The OP's article discusses supposed leaks and contacts with the press. The IG report discussed the failure of the FBI to set out and enforce a clear policy with regards to contact and discussions with the media. And it did cut both ways during the election. The FBI's NY office was involved in improper leaks that probably gave Trump a boost a few weeks before the election.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36800695)

Think about it in the context of the OJ trial. Did Furman's racial bias provide a sufficient basis to ignore the evidence he and other investigators gathered? Even if Furman had said "OJ is a n---- who deserves to get got" would that be a sufficient basis to ignore evidence of guilt? It really wasn't. But jurors can definitely be swayed by these attacks on the investigators. This is what some in the GOP House are doing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36800834)

Author: '''"''''''"'' ( )

I’d just like someone to state, concisely, the legal significance of this development. Do they think it has implications for Muellers investigation? What remedies does Trump have for these shocking investigative abuses and communications with lib newspapers? Does this have implications for separate legal proceedings? Xo posters ITT whine about the failure to indict these bureaucrats but don’t say what the indictments should read.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36800129)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36800363)

The text messages suggest that Strzok, along with his paramour, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, had been in contact with reporters from both newspapers. Strzok specifically mentioned two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writer Michael Schmidt his text message to Page.

Strzok wrote, “Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.” (The New York Times did not respond immediately for comment. The Washington Post also did not respond immediately for comment.)

—-

Wtf are readers supposed to make of this garbled nonsense?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4076038&forum_id=2#36801045)