Peter Strzok’s lawsuit accuses DOJ of targeting Trump’s critics and letting off anti-Clinton agents

(CSPAN video screenshot)

Despite having been exposed as political hacks whose clear-cut anti-Trump bias may have interfered in their work for the government, disgraced former FBI special agent Peter Strzok and attorney Lisa Page remain convinced they’re victims.

Strzok remains particularly convinced. So much so that in August he filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and FBI claiming his termination in 2018 lacked merit. And in a new court filing Monday issued in response to a motion by the DOJ to dismiss the case, he further doubled down on this incredulous accusation.

The premise of his most recent filing is that government employees should be allowed to share their personal political opinions among themselves — and that if allowed to stand, his termination would run counter to this stated belief.

The government’s argument would leave thousands of career federal government employees without protections from discipline over the content of their political speech,” the filing reads.

See the filing below:

“Nearly every aspect of a modern workplace, and for that matter nearly every non-workplace aspect of employees’ lives, can be monitored. The fact that a workplace conversation can be discovered does not render it unprotected,” it adds.

Interestingly, Strzok has never said a peep about conservative Hollywood actors being ostracized and in some cases blacklisted over their political views.

Nonetheless, in virulently anti-Trump text messages exchanged during the FBI’s probe into 2016 presidential candidate President Donald Trump’s campaign, he and Page repeatedly disparaged both the very man they were investigating and his supporters.

In one particularly disturbing text from August of 2016, Strzok mentioned an “insurance policy” against then-GOP nominee Trump’s election to office.

Speaking in defense of this text just last week, Page admitted that, yes, both she and Strzok had and still continue to think negatively of Trump.

“By ‘we,’ he’s talking about the collective we: like-minded, thoughtful, sensible people who were not going to vote this person into office … ” she said of the tweet.

But she insisted the message wasn’t malicious — that it was just “a snapshot in time carrying on a conversation that had happened earlier in the day that reflected a broad sense of, ‘He’s not going to be president.’ We, the democratic people of this country, are not going to let it happen.”

When this clearly anti-Trump sentiment was discovered by the DOJ, Strzok was promptly removed from then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Then in August of 2018, he was fired altogether from the bureau. Page for her part chose to voluntarily resign from the bureau in May of 2018.

What Strzok doesn’t seem to comprehend, as demonstrated by his most recent filing, is that there’s a drastic difference between federal employees texting each other about current political matters, and federal employees texting each other about a political matter or figure whom they’re investigating.

He may nevertheless have a valid case. Why? Because according to the filing, prior to his termination he’d accepted a compromise that called for him to merely be demoted and temporarily suspended. But in August of 2018, that compromise apparently went by the wayside when FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich abruptly fired him. Strzok now claims the compromise collapsed because of interference from the president.

[H]is firing by the Deputy Director of the FBI after Mr. Strzok had already entered into a binding agreement to accept demotion and suspension was indeed a politically-motivated achievement of President Trump and his political allies tied to a politically-motivated effort to use Mr. Strzok’s text messages to discredit investigations of the President and his campaign,” the filing reads.

But this argument neglects to consider the fact that the “investigations” into the president found nothing — that Trump was ultimately acquitted of Russian collusion.

The argument also skips over the equally compelling fact that the president’s complaints about Strzok — of which there were many both before and after his termination — were rooted in his well-founded belief that the Russian probe was itself politically motivated.

“Well-founded” in the sense that, unlike with Strzok’s flimsy accusations against the DOJ and FBI, the evidence to back the president’s claim has been legion:

Strzok’s suit also references agents within the FBI who were allegedly caught expressing a pro-Trump bias but who nevertheless remain gainfully employed at the bureau.

“[C]ertain FBI agents working on the Russia investigation had celebrated President Trump’s election victory with texts volunteering to work on an investigation of the Clinton Foundations and (apparently without irony) proclaiming that Secretary Clinton’s defeat ensured that there would not be a ‘criminal . . . in the White House,'” the filing reads.

“There is no evidence of an attempt to punish these agents, and Plaintiff does not contend that they should be punished. But this vignette is yet additional evidence of this Administration’s pattern of treating critics of President Trump more harshly than his supporters.”


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles