Peter Strzok sues FBI for firing him over anti-Trump texts

[Belsnickel]

Kinda surprised this hasn't been posted, yet. Or if it was, I missed it and you can feel free to combine things.

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — A veteran FBI agent who wrote derogatory text messages about Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Tuesday charging that the bureau caved to “unrelenting pressure” from the president when it fired him.

The suit from Peter Strzok also alleges he was unfairly punished for expressing his political opinions, and that the Justice Department violated his privacy when it shared hundreds of his text messages with reporters.

“This campaign to publicly vilify Special Agent Strzok contributed to the FBI’s ultimate decision to unlawfully terminate him,” the lawsuit says, “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.”

The complaint, which names as defendants Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray, revisits a political drama that was seized on by conservative critics of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation as proof that the bureau was biased against Trump. It provides new details about the circumstances of Strzok’s firing and amounts to the latest defense of his reputation, coming months after a fiery congressional hearing in which he insisted that his personal views never influenced his work.

Multiple investigations are underway examining whether the FBI acted properly during the Russia investigation, and Strzok remains a frequent target of Trump’s scornful tweets. A Justice Department inspector general report focused on the early days of the Russia probe is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment on Strzok’s lawsuit.

Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent who helped lead FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, was removed from Mueller’s team after the texts with FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to light. He was fired from the FBI last August.

The lawsuit seeks reinstatement to the FBI, back pay and a declaration that the government violated his rights.

Many of the texts, on FBI cell phones, were bitingly critical of Trump during his 2016 run for office. They were found by the department’s inspector general during its investigation of the FBI’s Clinton email probe. The watchdog office criticized both Strzok and Page, with whom he was having an affair, for their judgment in sending the messages but didn’t find that the Clinton email investigation was tainted by political bias.

In the lawsuit, Strzok attorney Aitan Goelman says the FBI deputy director who fired him was responding to “unrelenting pressure from President Trump and his political allies in Congress and the media.” That deputy, David Bowdich, overruled the recommendation of a disciplinary official that Strzok be merely demoted and suspended, and denied him the chance to appeal, the complaint says.

The FBI has said that Bowdich, as the FBI’s No. 2 official, had the authority to overrule disciplinary findings. Bowdich said at the time that Strzok’s “sustained pattern of bad judgment in the use of an FBI device” called into question decisions made during the Clinton email investigation and the early stages of the Russia probe, the lawsuit says.

The complaint also says the campaign to fire Strzok included “constant tweets and other disparaging statements” from Trump, as well as the president’s direct appeals to Wray and Barr’s predecessor as attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to fire Strzok.

In addition, the lawsuit says the administration discriminated against his viewpoint by firing him even though other government officials who have supported Trump in the workplace have kept their job.

It notes that the White House has not fired counselor Kellyanne Conway despite the determination that she violated the Hatch Act — a law that limits political activity by government workers — by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity.

“The Trump administration has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries,” the complaint contends.

The lawsuit also says the Justice Department set out to smear Strzok’s reputation and humiliate him when it disclosed nearly 400 text messages he had sent or received.

In the complaint, Strzok aims to explain some of the texts that have attracted the most negative attention, including one in which he told Page “we’ll stop” a Trump presidency.

Many conservatives and critics of the Russia investigation have interpreted the text as Strzok saying that he would work to prevent Trump from being elected, but the suit says the message was actually meant to reassure Page that the American people would not support a Trump candidacy.

Going to be an interesting case to watch, for sure.

[JustWinBaby]

In that job, well any job but especially THAT job, the context or intent of the comments are irrelevant because it's how you're perceived as a result of those comments that matters.

If he didn't make the comments, or made them on his own personal device then he still has a job. Now, pointing at Trump as a defense against any ethical or moral standard justifying termination would be an interesting defense. But case should be dismissed, IMO.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 08:32 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: In that job, well any job but especially THAT job, the context or intent of the comments are irrelevant because it's how you're perceived as a result of those comments that matters.

I say this at my work all the time.  In our profession the appearance of impropriety is the same as actual impropriety.  It takes a considerable investment of time and effort to become an FBI agent, let alone climb to the position Strzok was in.  He effed up, big time.  I think he knows this and is just trying to salvage what he can.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-07-2019, 09:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I say this at my work all the time.  In our profession the appearance of impropriety is the same as actual impropriety.  It takes a considerable investment of time and effort to become an FBI agent, let alone climb to the position Strzok was in.  He effed up, big time.  I think he knows this and is just trying to salvage what he can.

I'm not sure how his pension might have been affected, so could be a negotiating ploy.  His screen test for MSNBC/CNN must not have gone well.

We also don't know what past practice is.  Maybe the crime called for demotion to a field office.

[Benton]

Back 10 years or so ago some sales people at the company I was with (newspaper) got fired for wearing gop shirts at an event representing the company. I was ok with that for the same reason I'm ok with a guy potentially involved in federal investigations showing political bias.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 09:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Back 10 years or so ago some sales people at the company I was with (newspaper) got fired for wearing gop shirts at an event representing the company. I was ok with that for the same reason I'm ok with a guy potentially involved in federal investigations showing political bias.

/thread


But feel free to continue all.   

[Belsnickel]

I get what is being said, here, but if there was no finding of poor job performance in spite of the partisan position expressed in the texts then it does become a free speech issue if he was fired for that. I think he was a moron for doing what he did, but he may have a case. With the IG report saying there was no political bias in his work on the Clinton investigation despite his poor judgement and the pressure from Trump being so public, there is a mound of evidence on his side of the case. That's before getting into possible other evidence we are unaware of regarding the handling of other personnel situations.

[Benton]

(08-07-2019, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what is being said, here, but if there was no finding of poor job performance in spite of the partisan position expressed in the texts then it does become a free speech issue if he was fired for that. I think he was a moron for doing what he did, but he may have a case. With the IG report saying there was no political bias in his work on the Clinton investigation despite his poor judgement and the pressure from Trump being so public, there is a mound of evidence on his side of the case. That's before getting into possible other evidence we are unaware of regarding the handling of other personnel situations.

You're representative of your employer. Being a leo aside, an employer shouldnt be restricted in their first amendment rights, either. 

But being a leo, to me, it's even more of an issue. Like the cop in Chattanooga who was openly hostile towards gays. It casts a shadow of doubt on all his work, even of there were 100 percent substantiated, evidenced arrests.

[Aquapod770]

Awwww man. He doesn't like his rights being violated?

What a shame.

Sooooooooooooooo sad

If only someone had been warning us about this for years

[jj22]

If you can't text your girlfriend about politics who can you text?

I'd like to see all these judges, fbi agents, cops etc texts to their wives and girlfriends before I judge Peter. Hell many were at Trump campaign events etc but nobody cared about that. At least Peter didn't make his political feeling public like they did.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-07-2019, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what is being said, here, but if there was no finding of poor job performance in spite of the partisan position expressed in the texts then it does become a free speech issue if he was fired for that. I think he was a moron for doing what he did, but he may have a case. With the IG report saying there was no political bias in his work on the Clinton investigation despite his poor judgement and the pressure from Trump being so public, there is a mound of evidence on his side of the case. That's before getting into possible other evidence we are unaware of regarding the handling of other personnel situations.

Quote:That deputy, David Bowdich, overruled the recommendation of a disciplinary official that Strzok be merely demoted and suspended, and denied him the chance to appeal, the complaint says.

If you are putting that in the complaint it could come across as admitting what you did was wrong, but the punishment was too harsh.  Now I could also see that they can argue, "Hey he didn't do anything wrong, but even the guy who thought he did didn't go so far as firing him."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2019, 01:56 AM)Benton Wrote: You're representative of your employer. Being a leo aside, an employer shouldnt be restricted in their first amendment rights, either. 

But being a leo, to me, it's even more of an issue. Like the cop in Chattanooga who was openly hostile towards gays. It casts a shadow of doubt on all his work, even of there were 100 percent substantiated, evidenced arrests.

Benton is all over this thread.  You cannot exhibit any bias in the LEO profession, it taints every decision you make in the eyes of any observer. 

[Au165]

(08-08-2019, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If you are putting that in the complaint it could come across as admitting what you did was wrong, but the punishment was too harsh.  Now I could also see that they can argue, "Hey he didn't do anything wrong, but even the guy who thought he did didn't go so far as firing him."

That second quote there could be an issue. By overruling the disciplinary official, and denying him the right to appeal the decision, they may have violated his rights laid out in their own manual. I don't know that they did or didn't follow the procedures in their manual, however based on that quote it seems like that is the angle they are going after. Even in at will employment states if companies don't follow their own rules in the termination of employees that they themselves laid out, and through agreeing to employment there the employee agreed to, it is not uncommon for courts to find in favor of the employee no matter how justified the employer may have been in firing them in the first place.

It pays for both parties to understand each others rights laid out in the employee manual. Source, my wife is a high up in HR and constantly deals with not being able to fire people because managers didn't properly follow procedures. 

[Goalpost]

So this was always a very big no no for me at work...giving political opinions. It's not part of our job responsibility.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2019, 09:44 AM)jj22 Wrote: If you can't text your girlfriend about politics who can you text?

I'd like to see all these judges, fbi agents, cops etc texts to their wives and girlfriends before I judge Peter. Hell many were at Trump campaign events etc but nobody cared about that. At least Peter didn't make his political feeling public like they did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some of the texts stating things like stopping Trump from being elected? If so, that's not just talking about politics. That sounds more like an abuse of power to me.

[Aquapod770]

(08-08-2019, 01:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some of the texts stating things like stopping Trump from being elected? If so, that's not just talking about politics. That sounds more like an abuse of power to me.

Bingo. 

But according to JJ that's not as bad as attending a Trump rally. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-08-2019, 09:44 AM)jj22 Wrote: If you can't text your girlfriend about politics who can you text?

I'd like to see all these judges, fbi agents, cops etc texts to their wives and girlfriends before I judge Peter. Hell many were at Trump campaign events etc but nobody cared about that. At least Peter didn't make his political feeling public like they did.

You can text whomever you want whatever you want on your OWN phone. He was doing so on his FBI issued phone. That means it's not a private conversation.

Not only that, but he was also married man having an affair with a married woman, which doesn't look good either, now with this case, it's all going to come back out in the spotlight again.

I'm sure they will find some violations in his texts, probably those sent to his mistress.

So it's all an uphill battle for him as he participated in egregious conduct.


EDIT: Also I thought “excepted service” which means the FBI doesn't have to follow procedures during terminations.

[jj22]

He was talking to his girlfriend people. What all have you said to your girlfriends (or boyfriends)?

Again, let all cops, judges, fbi agents, etc show their text to their girls before you come to a conclusion.

And yes I repeat, this wasn't public like those who didn't text but said publically let's not elect Hillary and chanted lock her up!

But yea, focus your attention on a private text to a girlfriend.

Excuse me tho if I don't care what you say to your girlfriend in private. I won't demand you be fired for it or act like political conversations with your girl don't take place.

[jj22]

(08-08-2019, 02:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not only that, but he was also married man having an affair with a married woman, which doesn't look good either, now with this case, it's all going to come back out in the spotlight again.

The high horse missed you. Too bad you abandoned it in 2016.

But I'm glad you have morals again.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-08-2019, 02:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: The high horse missed you. Too bad you abandoned it in 2016.

But I'm glad you have morals again.

Knock off the personal attacks and stick to the subject matter.