Congrats, America: Your tax dollars are funding settlement payouts to former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page over their claims that the release of their text exchanges in relation to the investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and the "Russia Collusion" hoax regarding former President Donald Trump violated their privacy.
The Justice Department has agreed to settle long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the media text messages between two former FBI employees involved in the probe of alleged ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
In a notice filed with two federal judges in Washington on Tuesday, the Justice Department said it had reached settlements of legal claims that fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page brought in 2019 alleging that the disclosure violated their privacy.
The terms of the settlements were not disclosed in the notice, which said Strzok’s claims that his firing violated his First Amendment and due process rights are not resolved by the agreement. That litigation, alleging that the FBI caved to political pressure from Trump to fire Strzok just before he was eligible for full retirement pay, is ongoing.
...
Officials have said the text messages were shown to journalists at about the same time they were delivered to Capitol Hill and that the disclosure was aimed at preventing lawmakers hostile to Strzok and Page from taking the most inflammatory messages out of context.
The messages showed the pair, who were having an extramarital affair, exchanged texts describing Trump as an “idiot,” saying that Hillary Clinton deserved to win by a huge margin, and disparaging Trump supporters. Strzok, who also played a role in the investigation of Clinton’s handling of classified information, referred to the FBI’s ongoing Russia probe as “an insurance policy,” which Trump and his supporters have interpreted as a suggestion it could be held over Trump’s head if he won the election.
RELATED:
As noted above, the settlement resolves only the privacy violation claims of Strzok and Page. It does not resolve Strzok's claims that both his First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was fired.
I'll confess, I'd all but forgotten that the lovebirds had filed suit over their texts being outed. If you're looking for some mildly entertaining Sunday legal-type reading, you may peruse Strzok's Complaint in full below. I got a kick out of the opening sentence:
Peter Strzok served his country with distinction in the armed services and as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for more than 25 years.
Of course, one of the first things that came to my mind in relation to the privacy violation claims was the recollection that the exchanges took place on government-issued devices. Indeed, that point was raised by the Government in its Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
The communications between Plaintiff and the Government Attorney took place, not on personal devices, but on Department-issued mobile devices, which contained clear banner warnings that inform users of the lack of any reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. ¶ 14. While the Department permits limited personal use of its equipment, this policy does not exempt mobile devices from Department monitoring and oversight, and Department employees receive regular training and notices that any activity and content on Department is subject to being monitored. Id. ¶15. Plaintiff and the Government Attorney knew, or should have been aware, that these texts would have been subject to review by others in the Department and possibly even the subject of a FOIA request or disclosed in connection with criminal prosecutions. Id.
(I've often wondered about that — Strzok and Page had to know their carrying-on was on department-issued devices. Perhaps they were so confident in their righteousness that they assumed they'd never be questioned or called to account — which is troubling in its own right.)
In any event, it appears that one small chapter of the Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane debacles is coming to a close. I'd like to think the undisclosed settlement amounts are of the peanuts variety, but I'm not that naive. And now that I've been reminded of Strzok's ongoing First and Fifth Amendment litigation, I'll make a point to continue monitoring it — just to see where it all ends up.
Strzok Complaint by Susie Moore on Scribd
Join the conversation as a VIP Member