Just When We Thought Peter Strzok Was Gone

 

After finally recovering from the smirking, disrespectful and arrogant face of Peter Strzok, and approving of his subsequent firing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he’s back.

He’s decided to file a lawsuit against the FBI and Justice Department, stating that his firing was “politically motivated and in violation of two constitutional amendments.” Especially amusing is that he seems conveniently confused about whose actions were politically motivated.

I guess, for starters, we’re supposed to feel sorry for him. As the lawsuit says:

The campaign to publicly vilify Special Agent Strzok contributed to the FBI’s ultimate decision to unlawfully terminate him, as well as to frequent incidents of public and online harassment and threats of violence to Strzok and his family that began when the texts were first disclosed to the media and continue to this day.

I suppose that some will say that the threats he made against Trump’s presidency aren’t relevant to this lawsuit. Except they are, as demonstrated in his messages to Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair:

In an October text message, Strzok wrote to Page: ‘I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer. I can’t pull away. What the f**k happened to our country??!?!’ [asterisks used to replace offensive words]

‘[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page wrote Strzok in August 2016 to which he wrote back: ‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.’

The lawsuit claims that his right to free speech was violated, and that his right to due process was violated, since he was denied the right to appeal his firing.

Not surprisingly, Strzok and his attorney seemed to have ignored certain actions that Strzok took. These actions and behaviors violate the ethics of the FBI. Here are just a few examples:

  • Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. (Consider Strzok’s actions on behalf of Hillary Clinton.)
  • Employees shall not use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election. (How about planting a spy in the Trump campaign or submitting the FISA warrant?)
  • Employees shall not participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government-owned or leased vehicle. (Think about the meetings that were held to plan the conspiracy story.)

In the DOJ’s evidence collection about the Russian collusion hoax, I suspect they will discover that many people lied, including Strzok.

Since Peter Strzok has repeatedly demonstrated his own arrogance, sense of entitlement as an FBI officer and outrageous statements while being interviewed by the House committee, I’m not surprised that he thinks he can win this lawsuit. From one perspective, I hate that government money and time will be spent against his suit. On the other hand, I hope that he will be brought to his knees through a trial. As the DOJ ethics manual says:

In DOJ, political appointees, career SES, ALJs, explosives enforcement officers in the ATF, and employees of the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the National Security Division are further restricted with regard to political activities, and may NOT engage in many of these actions. These employees should seek specific guidance from their ethics official before engaging in any partisan political activity. 

His actions against Trump and his campaign can’t be construed as anything other than political activity.

Many people are skeptical about any official action being taken against people who were involved with the Russian hoax. I think that not only will Strzok lose his lawsuit, but the justification for his firing will be presented at the trial. When you are in the FBI, you don’t get special privileges in the political realm.

Announcement to Peter Strzok: No one is above the law. No one.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    While on government time Strzok used government-provided equipment to communicate with another government employee on government time using government-provided equipment and he has an expectation of privacy? That’s rich.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Percival (View Comment):

    While on government time Strzok used government-provided equipment to communicate with another government employee on government time using government-provided equipment and he has an expectation of privacy? That’s rich.

    His arrogance knew no bounds, @percival. It’s pretty ugly.

    • #2
  3. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The arrogance of this lawsuit! This smirking jackass should be spending his days breaking big rocks into little ones.

    Susan Quinn: Announcement to Peter Strzok: No one is above the law. No one.

    In theory.

    In reality, the last few years have shown us just how many federal officials are above the law.

    Trust in government is irrevocably broken because these criminals are never held accountable.

    • #3
  4. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Excellent post, @susanquinn.

    When someone asks me what is wrong with Washington, I just show them a photo of Strzok at that hearing.

    • #4
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The arrogance of this lawsuit! This smirking jackass should be spending his days breaking big rocks into little ones.

     

    Even that is too good for him! I hope a trial gives DOJ the opportunity to shine a light on all his unbelievable actions–just to make their case, of course. Thanks, @drewinwisconsin. BTW, wasn’t McCabe fired for “lack of candor”; I’d be surprised if that didn’t apply to Strzok, too, and there was no reason to publicize it.

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Excellent post, @susanquinn.

    When someone asks me what is wrong with Washington, I just show them a photo of Strzok at that hearing.

    Nobody does a “smirk” the way he does–he’s definitely nailed the art form. Thanks, @jimmcconnell

    • #6
  7. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Excellent post, @susanquinn.

    When someone asks me what is wrong with Washington, I just show them a photo of Strzok at that hearing.

    So you’re saying that what’s wrong with Washington is that they’re all possessed by demons?

    Image result for Smirking Strzok

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    Trust in government is irrevocably broken because these criminals are never held accountable.

    We’ll have to have a beer–or a glass of wine–when they finally do the right thing!

    • #8
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    Trust in government is irrevocably broken because these criminals are never held accountable.

    We’ll have to have a beer–or a glass of wine–when they finally do the right thing!

    This will be a long bout of sobriety.

    • #9
  10. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Don’t look now … but the judge who just got assigned this case is 0bama appointee corrupt Amy Berman Jackson.

    • #10
  11. Michael Brehm Coolidge
    Michael Brehm
    @MichaelBrehm

    I can name something else that doesn’t go away…

    • #11
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn: The lawsuit claims that his right to free speech was violated, and that his right to due process was violated, since he was denied the right to appeal his firing.

    Unless he was a political appointee, every government employee can dispute a termination for cause.  I find it ironic he thinks his free speech was violated, given the fact all e-mails used by us Feds are subject to security review.  No one tried to stop him from speaking or e-mailing.  He just doesn’t like the idea using his freedom of speech gave the authorities the rope by which they hanged him.

    And does he realize his rationale for suing (threats to self and family) sets the groundwork for Trump employees to sue Democrats and the MSM for the same thing?

    He should shut up, grab Lisa Page, find some island for them to live on, and curse Trump for the rest of their lives while they roll around on the beach like a pair of randy teenagers.  May they both be happy together . . .

    • #12
  13. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    In his defense, normally when a government employee totally screws up he gets promoted, not fired.

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Don’t look now … but the judge who just got assigned this case is 0bama appointee corrupt Amy Berman Jackson.

    Good grief. Before we give up, will the judge decide the case or will it be a jury trial? We’re going to have to hope that the DOG attorneys will know how to work with her bias. I.Will.Not.Give.Up.

    That’s just what they want us to do. I won’t!

    • #14
  15. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: The lawsuit claims that his right to free speech was violated, and that his right to due process was violated, since he was denied the right to appeal his firing.

    Unless he was a political appointee, every government employee can dispute a termination for cause. I find it ironic he thinks his free speech was violated, given the fact all e-mails used by us Feds are subject to security review. No one tried to stop him from speaking or e-mailing. He just doesn’t like the idea using his freedom of speech gave the authorities the rope by which they hanged him.

    And does he realize his rationale for suing (threats to self and family) sets the groundwork for Trump employees to sue Democrats and the MSM for the same thing?

    He should shut up, grab Lisa Page, find some island for them to live on, and curse Trump for the rest of their lives while they roll around on the beach like a pair of randy teenagers. May they both be happy together . . .

    The ‘lovebirds’ are no longer. I hope she testifies against him. Bigly.

    In this 2/2/2018 WSJ article (behind paywall), it was reported that Lisa Page texted Strzok …

    “Don’t ever text me again.”

    And the ever-cheating Strzok wasn’t even ‘faithful’ to Lisa. /shocking!

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    In his defense, normally when a government employee totally screws up he gets promoted, not fired.

    Mostly because it’s nearly impossible to fire a federal employee. So I imagine Strzok was rather surprised that, for him, they made a special effort.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):
    Unless he was a political appointee, every government employee can dispute a termination for cause.

    @stad–is this true for any government employee?

    • #17
  18. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    What a fool.  Now the government gets to turn every single rock during the discovery phase of the lawsuit.  Every bit of his stinky life and cheating will be fair game. Every text. Every email.  Every document. 

    More importantly to me is why is he being allowed into FBI headquarters and even sitting in on meetings there?

     

    • #18
  19. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    In his defense, normally when a government employee totally screws up he gets promoted, not fired.

    I never got promoted, so I must have been good!

    • #19
  20. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The ‘lovebirds’ are no longer.

    The potential for going to prison will do that, especially for a woman who might be cellmates with a lifer . . .

    • #20
  21. Hugh Member
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    I guess his lawyer told him its best to get on the offensive in the hopes that they can build this up into something that they can trade for something else.

    • #21
  22. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Hugh (View Comment):

    I guess his lawyer told him its best to get on the offensive in the hopes that they can build this up into something that they can trade for something else.

    Yes. Clearly his lawyers are using ‘the best defense is a good offense’ strategy.

    I hope that it falls completely on its face, as it should.

    No surprise … his political hack co-traitor is now using the strategy …

    Any normal person who did what they did, with documented evidence(!), would be in jail now.

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn:

    ‘[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page wrote Strzok in August 2016 to which he wrote back: ‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.’

    The first question to him should be ‘How?’. And how is this expressing his opinion? Sounds more like his intention.

    Edited to add: Don’t we civilians get detained and interrogated by the FBI for statements like the above?

    • #23
  24. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Aaannnd . . .this just in: another lawsuit, this time by disgraced FBI-er Andrew McCabe!!

    I guess someone (Soros?) has decided there’s just not enough lawfare going on against the Trump administration yet.

    Will this one go to Obama judge Berman, too?

    It really is just such a coincidence [cough, cough] that these cases always seem to be randomly assigned to Obama judges. Or at least it seems that way.

    I suppose the DOJ does not want to try too often (if ever) to disqualify a district court judge for bias, as the judge’s appointment is for life and the DOJ is a frequent litigant. Sigh.

    • #24
  25. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Kozak (View Comment):
    More importantly to me is why is he being allowed into FBI headquarters and even sitting in on meetings there?

    He shouldn’t be allowed in–and another foolish gesture on the part of the FBI. Sheesh.

    • #25
  26. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Fritz (View Comment):
    I suppose the DOJ does not want to try too often (if ever) to disqualify a district court judge for bias, as the judge’s appointment is for life and the DOJ is a frequent litigant. Sigh.

    I don’t care what they’re worried about. How about, for a change, they just do the right thing?  . . . Nah. . .

    • #26
  27. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Columbo (View Comment):
    No surprise … his political hack co-traitor is now using the strategy …

    With McCabe’s lawsuit, I assume they still think they have the deep state behind them. We have to hope that this is simply not the case. Go AG Barr!

    • #27
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Susan Quinn: Announcement to Peter Strzok: No one is above the law. No one.

    This would make a good Wong meme from Doctor Strange in MCU.

    • #28
  29. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Koz:

    “What a fool. Now the government gets to turn every single rock during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Every bit of his stinky life and cheating will be fair game. Every text. Every email. Every document.”

    Bingo. We have a winner. 

    I actually love this law suit.  What an opportunity in the discovery phase!  The DOJ and FBI will really have to reach down real low to block discovery on many, many items. Let this thing drag on and on until November 2020, and just keep revealing one dirty trick after another ! It’s a gift. 

    • #29
  30. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    More importantly to me is why is he being allowed into FBI headquarters and even sitting in on meetings there?

    He shouldn’t be allowed in–and another foolish gesture on the part of the FBI. Sheesh.

    Gesture nothing. He’s still meeting with the co conspirators in the attempted coup.

    The rot at the FBI must run really deep.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.