DOJ Settles Privacy Act Lawsuit, Prepares for Peter Strzok’s Amended Complaint
Donald Trump is already furious with Christopher Wray — because he testified that Joe Biden retains his faculties, because he revealed that Trump might have been hit by a fragment of the bullet shot at him.
And now, because DOJ has begun to reverse Trump’s six year war on Peter Strzok.
Yesterday, DOJ settled the Privacy Act lawsuits of both Strzok and Lisa Page.
According to Politico, Strzok will get $1.2 million (of which $200,000 would be a downpayment if Amy Berman Jackson awards him anything further on his remaining claims) and Page will get $800,000.
On Friday, Strzok’s lawyers announced his $1.2 million agreement as attorneys for both sides notified a federal judge in Washington that the privacy-focused portion of that dispute was resolved.
[snip]
Page, who resigned amid the controversy, settled her own Privacy Act claim with the department Friday. Copies of the settlement agreements for Strzok and Page obtained by POLITICO indicate Page is to receive $800,000. The documents state that the U.S. government is not admitting or conceding legal liability.
Strzok has filed an amended complaint, with the Privacy Act violations redacted, leaving two more claims:
- Unlawful termination in violation of his First Amendment
- Violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment
But the two sides are apparently already fighting about what happens next, in part because DOJ provided discovery yesterday, seemingly showing that in 2022 (in the wake of the Andrew McCabe settlement), FBI instituted a new policy giving the Deputy Director authority to override a final settlement determination from Office of Professional Responsibility.
As an initial matter, Defendants produced additional documents just before 1:00 pm today, July 26th. Mr. Strzok is in the process of evaluating those documents and considering the impact of their belated production on testimony that was—and was not—obtained in this case. One of the documents is dated March 2022 and appears critical. It delegates from the FBI Director to the FBI Deputy Director the power to impose summary dismissals and to overrule disciplinary decisions issued by the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”). Mr. Strzok has long argued that the Deputy Director could not possibly overturn a binding last chance agreement executed between an employee and the FBI OPR Assistant Director acting for and on behalf of the FBI. Mr. Strzok has further argued that even if the Deputy Director could have had that power, he did not have it in 2018. Today’s production appears to confirm Mr. Strzok’s argument. Counsel for all parties conferred this afternoon regarding the potential remedies for this belated production, and the parties will continue to confer to determine whether a request for additional relief from the Court is necessary.
That would seem to help Strzok’s case, proving that when David Bowdich fired him, he was not permitted to override OPR.
More telling, DOJ wants to draw out briefing such that even if Strzok files right away, this won’t be fully briefed until after whoever wins in November is inaugurated.
Strzok argues that Amy Berman Jackson can rule in favor of his due process claim right away. The viewpoint discrimination claim, though, could get interesting, as there are allegedly other FBI agents who sent pro-Trump texts on their phones, with no discipline. And that’s where Strzok argues he’ll prove that he was fired because Trump demanded it.
[T]here is a significant dispute of material fact as to Deputy Director Bowdich’s rationale and motive for terminating Mr. Strzok’s employment. That disputed issue pins Bowdich’s version of events against a mountain of evidence indicating that he fired Mr. Strzok because of the demands of former President Trump and Bowdich’s own politics and interests.
But again, DOJ intends to push this out past the election (and these initial filings would be largely redacted under the protective order).
ew: “Donald Trump is already furious”
harpie: “You just LOVE to see it!”
[Sorry…Back to reading…]
When I checked in on Fox this morning (as I do most days to catch the drift of Today’s Two-minute Hate), I heard Kudlow saying he doesn’t trust the FBI or the Secret Service or Justice.
Me, neither, but I suspect that the aspects the two of us are doubtful about are different.
I used to hate watch Fox but they shadowbanned my comments. So I stopped watching. It’s better this way because I would get so pissed off at the lies and spin.
Why does it feel like the emphasis is more on “Department of” and less on “Justice”?
Doesn’t this delay seem inconsistent with Merrick Garland’s claim that he is focusing on civil rights?
And, last but not least, wouldn’t it be more cost effective to settle sooner rather than later?
Time wounds all heels, claim those who believe in karma. But delay always softens the reputational blow, as we all forget and things go blurry.
Yes it would have been more effective to have settled sooner. Why the Barr DOJ did not settle confuses me.
I’ve done some employment litigation: employer’s side. DoJ seems to be acting about the same way any sensible private employer would: settle for a “reasonable” sum after some jousting, and minimize potential bad press. Organizational imperatives don’t differ much between public and private sectors, although the public sector is often more sensitive to bad press.
Should DoJ act this way? It’s the key question, but is also beyond my pay grade.
Important: Trump just told his “christian” supporters that they won’t have to vote, ever again, if they vote for him. To be sure. None of us will get to vote again if he wins this election.
This is more important food for discussion than anything else.
I’m sick of his ear. I’m more concerned about what comes out of his mouth and how much influence it has over people who should be paying attention.
Raises the question of how long a Trump Day is, since he’s promised to be a dictator only for his first day. Perhaps he meant from first to last. Never mind.
Maybe Trump’s Day One will be a little more focused — more along the lines of:
“Then Trump said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And Trump saw the light, that it was good; and Trump divided the light from the darkness. Trump called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day”
All the rest is just details, which Trump can’t be bothered with as long as Project 2025 is ready on Day Two. He’ll use Days Two through Seven to golf and take naps.
Every day will be the first day of the rest of his term, er, reign.
Given how he rage-tweets all around the clock, he may be amped up for a very long day indeed.
He also said several times “It’ll be fixed.” Is that an admission he plans to steal the election?
His supporters would claim, without much credibility, that Trump meant he would fix the myriad of ways the voting system fails to accurately count votes.
Trump more obviously meant that he would rig the system against accurately counting votes, meaning those not for Trump would be ignored, and that once installed in a stolen office, there would be no need for further elections. Kings are anointed, not elected, and they rule for life. He’s not hiding it any more.
https://www.psdispatch.com/news/93094/doj-watchdog-former-ag-bill-barr-involved-in-misleading-statement-on-county-mail-ballot-investigation
All over NINE ballots. Clearly, Trump won PA. /s
My read is that the “innocent” interpretation is he would make America such an irreversibly “Christian” nation that it would no longer matter who was President; each listener’s interpretation of Christianity would remain supreme. He may be losing it, but his instinct for cloaking his dog-whistles in plausible deniability lives on.
One of the problems with state Christianity, for us if not the Romans, was that only one interpretation of so-called Christianity prevails. All else is heresy. So, no, it would not be “each listener’s interpretation” that would reign supreme, although Trump might like to let his supporters think so.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
–Emo Philips
As a Christian (Lutheran), I note the irony that the U.S. is in fact founded on atheistic presuppositions and expicitily defines the church as irrelevant to its nature and function.
And with the rise of ChrIstian nationalism, I am reminded of the time, some years ago, when a national convention of a Lutheran church body got so quarrelsome during a session that the frustrated presiding officer in trying to bring the assembly to order blurted out, “If Jesus Christ were alive today, he’d be rolling over in his grave!”
And so now.
For the short time he was in it, despite being alive.
If true, this is what leads to casualties:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/28/trump-rally-shooting-secret-service-swat-team
Thanks, Marcy.
I get the feeling we’re going to see a lot of issues attempting to be resolved by DOJ between now and January.
There is so much to unwind.
I’ve read a LOT of posts here that referenced filings with redactions, and all of the redactions have made sense to me, up until now. Why is there a protective order that requires redactions in this case? I would have thought this was just a high-profile lawsuit about wrongful termination, with associated complications around privacy and due process. That seems pretty different from (for example) redacting the descriptions of some of the Mar-a-Lago documents.
What have I missed?
We forget, but Strzok and Page are two of our NatSec heroes. In the Hall of Fame they are, like Col. Vindman. Right now sure looks like you’re going all in on the NatSec. Be careful, “you either shut up or get cut up, they don’t wanna hear about it, It’s only inches on the reel-to-reel”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfxZjaFEOLc
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. Please be sure to use it each time you comment. /~Rayne]
Yeah they did their jobs but they also did some dumb things that unnecessarily left room for the rwnm to run wild. Let’s not put them on the same pedestal as Vindman or Hill
@PhoneInducedPinkEye: I totally agree. We might have hoped Bureau employees would be smarter than to leave evidence, not only of their tryst, but of their political preferences, on taxpayer funded phones. Mueller pulled them off the case but the damage was already done.
Alexander Vindman is a genuine hero. He heard something that was wrong, and took the heat for outing it. And there was plenty of heat to be taken.
The troubles visited upon Strzok and Page were due to their indiscretion. The troubles visited upon Vindman (and his brother) were due to his integrity.
But doesn’t it still sound like disparate treatment if the employees supporting Trump on their devices were not fired as well?
Oh it absolutely is, but we can still be pissed off at them for leaving such a stupid trail of distracting information on their work phones
If Bowditch didn’t have the authority back in 2018, then who did, Wray?
My take on Wray has been that he is in favor of dirty deeds done cheap to assuage his conscience (about betraying the Republic for Trump, hence his staying power) and also hoped to head off worse, an autogolpe perhaps? Some see him as a good Federalist but I’m not sure one exists.