Trey Gowdy Discusses Peter Strzok’s Political Lawsuit…

Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News to discuss the latest nonsense from former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.

Roosterhead brings up a good point that Strzok left out Robert Mueller in his civil lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI.  Hmmm?….

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Spygate, Spying, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to Trey Gowdy Discusses Peter Strzok’s Political Lawsuit…

  1. TheWanderingStar says:

    Gowdy and his hair. smh. He looks like Max Headroom against that blue background.

    Liked by 13 people

  2. A2 says:

    🤣🤑🤣🤑🤣🤑

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Sherri Young says:

    I prefer Strzok’s text on 05/18/2017 — “…An investigation leading to impeachment?”

    He seemed to really want to take PDJT’s scalp before the official investigation started.

    Kind of hard to imagine much justice in a system like that.

    Liked by 22 people

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      I thought that Mr. Gowdy stating the Peter Strzok was not fit to be a crossing guard was very fit. Why demean crossing guards by saying the PS (could that mean piece of sh*t, just wondering) could be a crossing guard.
      Liked!

      Liked by 1 person

      • steph_gray says:

        Gowdy said he didn’t know of anyone who would think Little Pete capable of being a crossing guard.

        But it occurred to me that there was at least one such person. Whoever wrote the bogus summary to the big IG report – Rosenstein and/or Wray? – didn’t see the bias in these outrageous texts.

        If Wray, he must have just as much bias, not to see it.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. distracted2 says:

    He knows that what’s coming is headed directly at him and he’s just trying to get out ahead of it or attempt to slow it down. IMO, he and his Lawfare buddies are hoping they can stall it until November 2020.

    Liked by 14 people

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      Many people, especially the Chinese gov’t, hope that the 2020 will turn in their favor!

      Liked by 1 person

      • sat0422 says:

        All I can think of is what I was told by my father, “Remember Pearl Harbor.” The real reason the Japanese attacked was what? Was it a shortage of oil? Was it because we are American?
        All I know is that when a rat is cornered, his fight becomes intensive to survive.

        Like

    • Austin Holdout says:

      My guess: Higher ups in coup planning went to big Dem donor and said: “it’s inconvenient to kill Pete right now. We need you to pony up to pay for a top notch head legal team to convince him he has a shot at getting his job back so he’ll keep his mouth shut. They will be able to stay close to Pete and tell us whether he’s thinking of squealing and we need to immediately switch to Plan B, Arkancide”.

      Hapless egotistical Pete probably believed that some Dem donor just couldn’t stand by doing nothing after the terrible injustice they saw perpetrated on him. Or maybe he knew the system well enough to know the “offer” of working with 5 free top tier attorneys was not optional.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Will Hunt says:

        does it give no one else a little pause that all of the high profile alleged felons (e.g. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok on and on) in this case seem not to have a care in the world about being prosecuted for very serious crimes? This kind of behavior in the face of all of the purported hard evidence seems very incongruous.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Linus in W.PA. says:

          They are playing the odds, plus they are truly in uncharted territory.

          They really have no idea how hard the hammer or blade may come down on them.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Chewbarkah says:

          Part of the Lawfare system is to build legal escape routes into the operations. Obama didn’t call for “by the book” for nothing. Strzok, et al, are confident that they compartmentalized tasks and planted paperwork sufficient to create legal doubt. Strzok will pretend he was just doing his job to defend the US against Russkii spies he thought might be infiltrating the Trump campaign.

          Like

          • Sherri Young says:

            It is true that defendants may be removed from RICO claims if they are just doing their jobs and not working toward a corrupt goal. RICO is about organized crime. If there no crime, there is no RICO. If Strzok was merely doing his job and not working in furtherance of a coup plot, he may have been in good shape.

            His texts say otherwise.

            Like

          • Will Hunt says:

            Comey has already signaled this defense so has Mueller for that matter “….this was a unique situation….” They’ll say we “had” to act because of the urgency of the situation, we did the best we could with the data we had, you’d do the same thing….and similar BS justifications for ignoring the law. Did Barr eviscerate Mueller for ignoring Trump’s civil rights or reject the “prosecutor’s brief” that Mueller submitted as a Special Counsel investigative report?

            Like

          • Lady Sid says:

            Him being Polish and all. . . .

            Like

      • Beau Geste says:

        Add in biased judge selection (Obama judge forum shopping) and ole Pete knows he has a chance to avoid arkancide. Look what happened with the coup group when they found friendly, secret FISC judges who willy-nilly say “You want me to OK political spying on the GOP presidential candidate? OK, where do I sign?

        Liked by 1 person

  5. evergreen says:

    For a civil servant with a top security clearance who should have been sacked for adultery to come back with a civil suit over wrongful termination, buttressed by an IG report, smacks of being a cornered rat. He’s going on offense to attempt to deflect whatever is coming his way from the prosecutorial arm of the govt. No doubt his attorneys are funded by a third, interested party.

    Liked by 23 people

  6. Blind no Longer says:

    Why on God’s green earth would Strzok sue his partner in coup crime Robert Mueller?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Bubba Cow says:

      Bob cut him out of his share of the 30+ mill

      Liked by 5 people

    • stripmallgrackle says:

      Especially after Mueller gave him the heave ho just because of a couple of innocent texts with BFF Page. Talk about a vengeance motive. But no, Prudential Pete took the high road here. Moreover, I saw where he mentioned his firing was because Trump. This guy won’t let anything distract him from the big picture. I’d trust him with Michelle Obama’s life.

      Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:

      He’s not. But that’s what weakens his case right out of the gate. The man who fired him was Mueller, and that wasn’t on orders of the POTUS. That was Mueller’s doing.

      So suing the DOJ & FBI for wrongful termination but conspicuously omitting to include the SC who fired him is what Gowdy is saying makes his case a farce.

      The only thing I can see would make sense is if Mueller only fired Strzok from the SC team, but not completely from the government. In that case he would not have a case against Mueller, only against the official(s) who ordered his termination from government employment.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Linda K. says:

    What was that dig at Mike Mulvaney about at the end?

    Liked by 10 people

  8. roddrepub says:

    Gigs up Petey!

    Liked by 1 person

    • stripmallgrackle says:

      As a former high level staffer at the FBI, I believe Strzuck/Strzorke/Strzock would be an attorney himself. As I understand it, that is a job requirement for special agents. So he knows what he’s doing. I wouldn’t dismiss his suit so quickly. /sarc

      Liked by 1 person

      • gnome says:

        I like to think of him as Mister Strowzack like that fat democrat broad kept calling him at the senate enquiry where she also kept praising him.

        Liked by 1 person

        • stripmallgrackle says:

          Even though the Polish use of the ‘strz’ consonants was explained to me once by someone of Polish heritage, it still took me a while to sort it out after Pete popped up in the news. I’ve resolved that. Now, two years later, I still hear the pronunciation treated as if it’s multiple choice when he’s up for discussion. Hence, Strzuck/Strzoke/Strzock. Sometimes I sidestep the whole mess and use my favorite nickname, Prudential Pete.

          Of course, I only use the label with all due respect. Nicknames are kind of like reputations. People usually get them the old fashioned way. They earn them.

          Like

      • snellvillebob says:

        Add that just this week we found out Strzok has been visiting FBI HQ for weeks and in conferences with agents there, one can only suspect the FBI is colluding with him.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Rudolph says:

          Why would someone who was fired be visiting his former place of employment? Security should not have let him in unless he was there with his lawyer?

          Liked by 4 people

          • Sherri Young says:

            It is the discovery process re his lawsuit.

            Like

          • stripmallgrackle says:

            Poker. Pete likes a good game of poker. Turns out his lawyer is a good player too, and welcome at the table. Nothing more to it than that. The boys still like to get together for cards, beer, and cigars, while they reminisce and joke about the good old days.

            At least, that’s what I heard from a guy who knows a guy who heard it from an anonymous source who said he was only repeating what he heard on MSNBC. You can take it to the bank.

            Like

      • Sherri Young says:

        Strzok is not an attorney. He stated that is a couple of his texts with Lisa Page. He relied on her for some legal advice.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Tall Texan says:

    He is so much better as a talking head than a Congressman. Seriously, I wonder why? Perhaps he knows what’s coming. Was this his way to get ahead of it – and to absolve his role in the shenanigans.

    Like

    • Peoria Jones says:

      What’s coming is likely a Fox gig. Perfect.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jim in TN says:

      How do you tell the difference? Gowdy’s job as a Congressman was to make the other side look bad via talking.

      Some of us thought he was trying to get things done. Like uncovering skulduggery and bringing criminal actions to light, so that the guilty would be punished. He sure fooled us.

      And of course the entire Republican Establishment kept saying they would get things done if only we would give them the House, then the Senate, then the Presidency, and the Courts. Well, we gave it all to them, and they still haven’t given us most of what they have been promising. Gowdy was an essential part of that fraud.

      You could say that his Congressional role has been good practice for his role as a commentator. Maybe MSNBC will hire him to replace Joe. ‘BeTrey and Mika in the Morning’ Cock-a-doodle-doo!

      Liked by 2 people

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        For those who have a short memory and continue bashing Mr. Gowdy, Paul Ryan was the damn boss. He controlled everything from the house. NOTHING gets to the House Floor unless Ryan wanted it there. Why so many treepers pile on Mr. Gowdy. And I hail from WI and detest Paul Ryan’s actions that stonewalled what could have been a great start for PDJT.
        I am very tired of this unrelenting bashing of the wrong person. Get off it!

        Liked by 4 people

        • 🍺Gunny66 says:

          Bashing the wrong person….Get off of it……

          He had the Hag ( Hillary ) in the chair for 11 hours and let her go…
          Paul Ryan did not let her go, Gowdy did…

          And if it was Paul Ryan falling the shots, then Gowdy is even a worse individual for cashing in on a reputation he never deserved.

          Our best, and as it was, our last chance to put her away, and he blew it.
          Paul Ryan or not…..

          Say what you want….he is all talk and hair….. He also somehow got $4 million richer while in Congress.

          Maybe, someone can explain how that happened.
          Ha…..Let’s ask Hillary…

          Now he is doing the same thing he always has, just talking for money…
          That is it….talking….. and he has hoodwinked most people

          Hell, our ristivan knows the law better than him and most people.

          He’s a fake…..

          Liked by 8 people

        • Sherri Young says:

          Boehner did not open the Benghazi Committee until May 2014. The Committee closed December 2016, several months after Comey’s saved Hillary from prosecution (for a while anyway) and Hillary had lost the election.

          Like

      • wtd says:

        My understanding – and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – Gowdy was in a position to investigate and recommend for prosecution only. Any loss in momentum was due to Paul Ryan and the DoJ who dropped the ball when any prosecution was recommended.

        Liked by 3 people

    • stripmallgrackle says:

      Well he’s looking at some potentially huge legal bills. Lawfare has him covered for this one, don’t know how long they will stick with him. This could be viewed as an act of desperation. Sometimes we do get lucky. The Powerball jackpot is at $112 million. Prudential Pete might consider buying a ticket just to cover all his bases.

      Like

  10. desperatelyseekingmelania says:

    When did it become an accepted truth that it was the text messages that got Strzok fired?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Bubba Cow says:

      … and what makes him think his speech has been restricted?
      We’ve read a lot of it. Thanks for you words, Pete.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rhoda R says:

      PS may be trying to change the narrative from his coup actions to the text messages – sort of like how Clinton changed the narrative from his lying under oath to a simple sexual escapade.

      Like

      • desperatelyseekingmelania says:

        You can’t fire an FBI agent, or any civil servant, for wrongthink. You can reassign them. Transfer them. But not fire them. He had to have done something else.

        Like

        • amwick says:

          He used FBI devices for his personal communication. Many times.

          Liked by 1 person

        • donna kovacevic says:

          What kind of bs is that, that you can’t fire a government official, civil servant for wrongdoing. I worked in that field in Canada and you can believe me when I say the asses that were kicked out were huge regardless how high they were in the positions and rightfully so. When lying Brian Mulrooney was our PM he fired 3 in his administration because they did not agree with him. That is the way shit gets cleaned out. My heart goes out to PDJT why bother being a president (not getting paid) Getting slammed daily and having no ability to do anything. That I call a Banana Republic. To hell with that circus. If one screws up out you go and then jail too.

          Like

    • mugzey302 says:

      Love your screen name! Hilarious! 👍

      Like

  11. When I first heard of Stozk’s bogus suit, it occurred to me that he might be trying to shield some self-incriminating material by virtue of his new suit’s attorney-client shield.

    Liked by 6 people

    • stripmallgrackle says:

      Maybe Barr should order a special counsel to look into Strzuck/Strzoke/Strzock’s firing. Prudential Pete has implied that this goes all the way up to the White House. Pete might even have a civil rights case. Maybe Trump has something against Poles too.

      Like

      • Louisiana Tea Rose says:

        Of course! because Trump is a RACIST!!!

        I think Doofus might be right…regardless, this says a lot about the Barr/Durham train coming down the track, even though Strzok IS a piece of low-hanging fruit.

        Like

        • donna kovacevic says:

          This “racist” crap you have in america is slowly but surely becoming a laughing stock in other countries. People can’t believe the mentality of americans, calling everything they don’t agree with racist. It is wearing very thin in our opinion and does not look good, because it is a LIE.

          Liked by 1 person

    • fractionalexponent says:

      Likely it also shields Lawfare involvement in the coup attempt.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. California Joe says:

    This is a pretty common tactic for high powered defense attorneys because it let’s them depose the government agents and witnesses before the criminal trial hits plus getting a head start with the government’s evidence.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Not a lawyer. Can a judge dismiss the case on grounds of…insert illegal action here.

    Liked by 2 people

    • stripmallgrackle says:

      Not a lawyer either, but I thought about playing one one TV once. The term “illegal actions” is vague, and decisions based on the use of overly broad strokes are usually overturned on appeal. I did a quick review of case law on Google, and cross referenced my findings on Facebook. I think the precedent set in AOC v World makes it clear that climate change would put the court on a much firmer legal footing, should a judge decide that citing the 1st and 5th amendments in a grievance claim by unethical employees is laughable.

      Like

      • stripmallgrackle says:

        I’m confident Matlock would concur.

        Like

      • stripmallgrackle says:

        I should add that I brought the question to a defense attorney I do frequent business with, and staying out of the weeds here, I’ll just say he is well versed in both civil and criminal law, he actually has that on his card, and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. The Devilbat says:

    The problem is that a jury in Washington DC is going to be hard left. This is why the sorry SOB has filed a lawsuit.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Julian says:

    If Strzok had been INDICTED and PROSECUTED for his actions wouldn’t it make it impossible for him to bring this lawsuit?

    How would a sympathetic judge like Amy Berman Jackson regard this case anyway?

    With merit? Or not?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Carrie says:

    The hair, that tie (at least it’s not purple!) It’s hard to focus on his words. His argument about Mueller being the one who fired Strozk is spot on. But I can’t help but think that this man is still angling for a position in the Trump cabinet? Could he be hoping to swipe away the DNI position from his good buddy Ratcliffe? He keeps posturing as if he is so objective and free of bias. But we know the Republican Senators would be thrilled for him to have such a position because he would absolutely do their bidding without hesitation…

    Liked by 1 person

    • A2 says:

      I will dismiss gratuitous comments and just point out Mr Gowdy has said he is good friends with Rep Ratcliffe and supported him for the job publicly.

      As for wanting a position in government, I believe he also made clear he is not seeking office and is out of politics.

      The clips are all there when he said these things. I will take him at his words and actions.

      Liked by 3 people

      • MelH says:

        I wouldn’t take him at his word for five seconds. He is obviously NOT out of politics. What earthly good, to the Republicans, is a guy who comes on acting as if he has the inside story when he’s all hat and no cattle. We don’t need more Talking heads. We need DOING heads.

        Like

      • Terri says:

        Mr Gowdy while serving as Chairman of the House Oversight Committee got access to evidence in the Russian investigation that other Congressmen have not seen. He does know what he is talking about!

        Like

    • Linda K. says:

      No! You might as well leave Coats in, if Gowdy became the head of DNI.No, no, no.

      Liked by 2 people

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      He is not angling for anything political beyond being a contributor!
      Where doe this vitriol come from. Certainly not from thinking clearly!

      Like

      • Carrie says:

        I used to be a Gowdy fan. Excellent on cross and follow up questions. But he has revealed himself to be a Never Trumper. Sundance has highlighted his conflicts in multiple articles in the last 3 years particularly.

        Like

  17. Raptors2020 says:

    Strzok is a sociopath: that’s what made him so valuable to his bosses. He was Luca Brasi to Comey’s Godfather. Strzok is always right and can only be a victim when he loses, in his own mind.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. MustangBlues says:

    Gowdy, in white culture, is a snake oil salesman type, and in negro culture is a jive ass turkey,

    both stereotypes, identify a hustler type, with a gift of gab, with no morals, purely narcissistic, a sociopath, lying all the time, That is Gowdy.

    Liked by 4 people

    • A2 says:

      No, it is your opinion of Mr Gowdy. Now prove it.
      🤣

      Like

      • Peoria Jones says:

        It’s hard not to like Trey Gowdy, but once Sundance pointed out his role in the Benghazi hearings, it became impossible to unsee.

        Liked by 1 person

        • 1970novass396 says:

          Those hearings went NO WHERE due to McCain being involved up to his neck. The Rogers guy left town not to be heard from again. Of course he was a snake in the grass as well.

          Like

      • MelH says:

        Gowdy proved it himself. He’s been proving it since Benghazi, maybe before that, for all i know. He had ALL the gossip and revelatory details, and he did NOTHING with it. To top off Gowdy’s sleuthing, 11 hours with HRC on the hot seat, TELEVISED, and nothing came of it.

        Like

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      No doubt, MB, you were looking in your own mirror when figuring out how to say hateful things, so it definitely is a representation of YOURSELF, no doubt!!!

      Like

  19. k4jjj says:

    There may be considerable money helping with Strzok’s legal case because he may be warning some very powerful people he will take them down with him if he is hung out to dry. Remember the text in which Page told Strzok POTUS (Obama) wanted to be kept fully informed?

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Kelly says:

    As I remember when mueller found
    out about Strzok/page texts he
    took him off the russia investigation
    an he was put in the HR dept..
    Maybe mueller did that for a reason,
    like scrubbing some texts?? I’m sure
    he was a pro at it from the Clinton
    emails..
    strzok’s security clearance was still
    In tact at that time. The whole thing
    just never sounded right. But then again nothing ever sounds right that comes
    out of the DOJ/FBI.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Terri says:

      Yes and then Mueller had all the rest of the love birds text messages wiped off their FBI phones, that was special.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      Putting him in HR was an enforcement thing. Strzok
      could pull files on any “contrary” employee at will.

      Soooo if there were any rumblings, and type of
      “outrage” from the worker bees, it could be squashed.

      Remember all the supposed outrage about the
      Clinton investigations from the rank and file? Both
      about the server and the Clinton Foundation?

      Remember how people were ready to “come forward?”
      How they were ready to resign or spill the beans
      after all the work they had done was buried? How
      soon after did all of that go away? Wasn’t it about the
      time of Pete’s “demotion?”

      Put a psycho in charge of the personnel files.
      Any agent that might be considered a “do gooder”
      runs the risk of having their file pulled, dirt dug up.
      Or added. Keeps the worker bees in line.

      Liked by 2 people

      • fractionalexponent says:

        A psychopath in FBI HR…how funny…

        Well, you reap what you sow.

        Raid Strzok’s house. You’ll probably find HR files stashed there.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. farrier105 says:

    Strzok has one argument–His firing reflects personal animus toward him. The Trump-Russia “investigation” was completely populated by people who were so biased against Trump in particular, and Republicans/Conservatives in general, that those firing him did not really have a bias case against him. They just did not like Petey Boy. Weissmann they keep around despite his open bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and his being a fact witness in Trump-Russia since Weissmann was the main contact of Bruce Ohr with Steele Dossier content, but Petey Boy they fire for doing some of the same things. Unfair employment practices. If they fire Strzok for bias, they would have to fire everyone on Mueller’s team and in the National Security division of the DOJ.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. JeffD_NC says:

    So to be clear…Strzok is suing the employer from which he was fired so there’s a pending lawsuit. Yet the director of the FBI has allowed him back into the organization at some level that gives him clearance. Someone needs to explain the logic here as there’s a bit of confusion.

    Like

    • steph_gray says:

      I don’t believe it’s confirmed that he is “allowed back,” is it? Don’t we have nothing but one sighting of him? He could have been subpoenaed to go in, couldn’t he? I’ve seen no evidence that he is actually working in the FBI.

      I haven’t read everything on the site for the last two days, but not sure we can jump to conclusions on that point.

      In fact, if he was confronted with his crimes and offered a chance to spill, this lawsuit could be the direct response. I bet his latest cel phone was burning with begging texts yesterday.

      Like

  23. Cocoon says:

    Strzok is the next cog in the wheel of justice. Doesn’t have his own funds so who would be interested in bringing a lawsuit further delaying evidence to the American public?
    No Democrat or Deep State interested party wants the hoax to be public prior to the election. And yes, we are already in an election cycle.
    Strzok had many meetings without his boss with Brennan for instance.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Bulldog84 says:

    Strzok’s lead lawyer on the civil case, Aitan Goelman, was shadowing Strzok during his congressional testimony and specializes in white collar criminal defense. He’s there to keep Strzok from further incriminating himself.

    If I’m defending this case, the first witness I would depose would be Robert Mueller.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sherri Young says:

      I’m wondering if Aitan Goelman and Strzok’s wife Melissa Hodgman have worked together. Hodgman is Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. Goelman used to be Director of Enforcement for the CFTC. They were working in their positions simultaneously.

      Hodgman was promoted to her position within days of the “insurance policy” text.

      Like

  25. Bigly says:

    Lol. Hillary and Saul Alinsky.

    Hillary is the puppet master here, her MO is all over this – accuse the accusers.

    Running out of time to make anything stick to these commie bastards. Pretty soon no one is going to care nor know what to believe – Hillary sure knows how to deflect. She’s the best in the business.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. cdnintx says:

    What did Trey mean when he said ” ….if that were the case Mick Mulvaney would have been fired along time ago.” ?

    Like

  27. TwoLaine says:

    “Roosterhead brings up a good point that Strzok left out Robert Mueller in his civil lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI. Hmmm?”

    That is the 1st thing I tho’t of when I saw your headline. Didn’t Mueller just say under oath that HE “reassigned” Satan, I mean Peter Strzok?

    Like

  28. dawg says:

    So If Strzok is suing the FBI, does that mean that report about him still being in meetings at the Hoover building is bogus? I hope so. Cant imagine Strzok would be allowed in if he was suing them.

    https://truepundit.com/wray-welcomes-peter-strzok-back-to-fbi/

    Like

  29. Mike says:

    I believe that Strzok just signed a book deal and the media coverage of his lawsuit keeps his name current. He’s following the path of his buddy McCabe with the book, GoFund campaign, and threatened lawsuit for wrongful termination. I’m not sure McCabe actually filed.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. scrap1ron says:

    Pete’s reward should be a length of rope and a handy lamp post.

    Like

  31. Chilidog says:

    If the doj has no interest in prosecuting him for any of his crimes, than he will most likely receive a settlement.

    Like

  32. Muthaucker says:

    The best defense is a good offense….

    Like

  33. Sharpshorts says:

    I enjoyed seeing Gowdy’s sly smile before he answered the question.
    Sundance did catch the “left out Mueller” part.of the reply too.
    Thx sundance!

    Like

  34. Zy says:

    Swivel Head should have resigned like the Lovely Lisa.

    Like

  35. Carly says:

    DS is funneling money to Strzok through GoFundMe. We’ve seen this all before.

    Like

  36. Truthfilter says:

    Aren’t federal employees unionized with benefits that include legal defense? This is how the teachers unions work. A union member is provided free legal counsel to fight job termination as well as any related criminal charges.

    Like

    • Truthfilter says:

      Peter S. will get a settlement. I would bet money that he knows that the FBI doesn’t want to fight this out in court. (This is how it works with fired teachers, too, btw.) This is about getting a lump sum of money while he still can.

      Like

  37. Rob says:

    It’s been said that Strozck may be suing in order to have the court (aka crooked DC judge) seal related documents that may incriminate him or other deep staters criminally. The he would file delay after delay to keep them out of the hands of Barr and Durham.

    Like

  38. JustaVerb says:

    ‘I don’t know anyone who thinks that is a law enforcement officer who should be handling a school crossing’

    ‘Don’t call me retardo’

    Like

  39. warspite2 says:

    Who cares what people say? Another day with nothing getting done. The professional bureaucracy and bureaucrats are winning.

    Like

  40. Boboleary says:

    The civil rights type federal lawsuit is a tactic that is being used more and more by defendants in sexual harassment cases, especially by accused state employees. They basically raise the cost and potential liabilty for defendant institutions and shift their positions re the accusers and harrasser. Here, though, I can’t see that strategy because the parties are too big to change things. Unless there is a discovery advantage, this seems to be an attempt at victimhood and posturing by Strzoc.

    Like

  41. Sherri Young says:

    Could this ridiculous lawsuit have anything to do with getting Strzok, Aitan Goelman, and Goelman’s legal team into closer proximity to coup friendlies? Would this give them opportunities to communicate without being observed in public and without their communications being documented? If they can’t meet at Starbuck’s, maybe the answer is to provide themselves an excuse to boldly go right into FBI HQ.

    Peter Strzok et al would probably be isolated to a conference room. With the right person assigned to the “watcher” position to control traffic of persons and documents into and out of that room, he and his legal team could receive information beyond the scope of what discovery would allow.

    “Taking one for the team” is not a new concept, especially if it might win the war. That devastating ruling last week that dismissed with prejudice the DNC v. Russia et al lawsuit would have closed a line of attack for the coup crew. So sending Strzok is a plausible next step.

    I don’t think this lawsuit is about redress. Not at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Shyster says:

    This lawsuit is a very positive opportunity assuming white hats will be assigned to the Feds defense of the case. The litigation phase of such a lawsuit known as “Discovery” will allow multiple multi day depositions, including deposing Strzok and other FBI witness including Lisa Paige and Strzock’s co workers in addition to the production of his private cellphone and email accounts on top of requiring Strzok to answer well thought out written questions under oath. Much could be learned and revealed.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Cowboy79 says:

    If Govt can show that they meet the burden of proof in 5 CFR 752, the judge can dismiss Strzok’s filing for failure to state a claim. That’s the best outcome here. Given the amount of texts, violation of Agency Ethics, Code of Conduct, etc, Govt should easily show termination promoted the efficiency of the service. Bad news if he is allowed to go to Discovery.

    Like

  44. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    If the case is so poor and everyone knows it (DC jury notwithstanding), the question arises, who’s paying his attorney? He just has money lying around?

    Like

  45. Thomas J. Minnehan says:

    This may have already been noted but mccabe now has also filed and has a $500k gofundme account-strzok also has a similar sized gofundme a/c.
    Seems there is a pattern here, maybe the clintons/dimos are continuing to stir things up.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s