The New York Times is facing scrutiny after publishing claims by former FBI agent Peter Strzok about the Russia investigation that critics say contradict years of public inspector general findings and congressional testimony.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The New York Times is being criticized for allowing former FBI special agent Peter Strzok to make unchallenged claims about the Justice Department inspector general’s findings on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation while publishing an article critical of FBI Director Kash Patel, according to reporting by Just the News.
The Times published an article last week that quoted Strzok asserting that the Justice Department’s inspector general found political bias did not influence decision-making in the FBI’s Russia investigation. The article did not include any factual rebuttal or context challenging that statement, despite extensive public records and testimony that contradict such a definitive conclusion.
Strzok, who was fired from the FBI after anti-Trump text messages surfaced between him and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, played central roles in both the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe. His comments were presented without correction even though former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz repeatedly stated that his office did not conclude political bias played no role in the investigation.
In his 2019 public report, Horowitz sharply criticized the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane and later testified to Congress that he was unable to conclude whether the misconduct uncovered was due to “gross incompetence” or “intentional misconduct.” He explicitly rejected claims that his findings meant bias played no role.
Horowitz further testified that the FBI’s conduct reflected either severe incompetence or purposeful wrongdoing and described the range of errors as “inexplicable.” He said the bureau’s explanations for the failures were “unsatisfactory across the board,” stressing that he did not rule out bias.
The Times article also republished criticism of Patel from Michael Feinberg, the former assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Norfolk field office. Feinberg resigned in May after his supervisor told him that his friendship with Strzok was under scrutiny by then–FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Although the Times referenced Feinberg among bureau “firings,” Feinberg has consistently stated that he was not fired but chose to resign rather than face a possible polygraph and demotion.
In his own account, Feinberg said he quit instead of risking a possible demotion or reassignment, despite expecting a promotion to FBI headquarters. Feinberg has written extensively about his resignation in a Lawfare article and reiterated on a Lawfare podcast that no one threatened to fire him.
Asked about the discrepancies, Times senior vice president of communications Danielle Rhoades Ha declined to address the inspector general record, Strzok’s statements, or Feinberg’s employment status, telling Just the News that editors had reviewed the article and determined “no update or correction is necessary.”
Strzok did not respond to a request for comment sent through Georgetown University, where he is listed as an adjunct professor. Feinberg also did not respond to inquiries sent through his employer, Lawfare.
Horowitz has repeatedly emphasized that his findings were widely mischaracterized. In June 2018 testimony, he said that text messages between Strzok and Page “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” One exchange included Strzok responding to Page’s concern that Donald Trump could win the presidency with: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Horowitz concluded that the exchange was “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”
The inspector general also questioned Strzok’s role in delaying investigation of tens of thousands of Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in 2016. Horowitz later wrote that his office lacked confidence Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over the Clinton inquiry was free from bias.
In December 2019, Horowitz documented at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” in FBI FISA applications targeting Carter Page and criticized the reliance on the debunked Steele dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and resulted in the campaign being fined more than $100,000.
Despite acknowledging he found no documentary or testimonial proof that bias definitively influenced the decision to open the investigation, Horowitz repeatedly stated he was not concluding bias played no role. He reiterated this point during Senate hearings, telling lawmakers that the FBI’s conduct left unresolved whether actions stemmed from incompetence or intent.
Since leaving the FBI, Feinberg has emerged as a frequent media critic of Patel, appearing on CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets, while joining the Brookings-affiliated Lawfare. He is now described as a national security analyst for MS-NOW, formerly MSNBC, according to his social media profile.
FBI spokesman Ben Williamson referred to the Times article featuring Feinberg as a “hit job,” adding to criticism that the paper ignored extensive public records while amplifying disputed claims by figures closely tied to the original investigation.
Critics argue the episode underscores ongoing disputes over how legacy media outlets characterize the origins and conduct of the Trump-Russia investigation, particularly when public watchdog findings and sworn testimony remain easily accessible.
Original article
Comments