Agent fired over anti-Trump text messages sues FBI, Justice

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

its not a crime to not like the president. This one well, it makes it very easy.

But his efforts failed. So now all he has are his tears...

Someday in the future a group of people will open a time capsule.

They will find this picture, and laugh their you know what off.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I understand the non expectation of privacy when you use government equipment but does that also cover them publishing the texts with the press?
I have no idea but somehow that just sounds like it should be wrong.

The texts were evidence in a Congressional investigation so no, they were not subject to privacy laws. Astonishingly, you're questioning the legality of leaking private text messages to the press which were leaked because one of the things the texts talked about were an insider plan by the FBI to leak information about Carter Page to the press...
www.rollcall.com...

That's some next level outrage gymnastics right there, hope you stretched beforehand or you'll pull a glute.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

So are any govt workers texts subject to FOIA requests?

I have no idea. I would assume any government employee could be subject to a narrow FOIA.( about a specific subject matter)... it's not like you could request every government employees texts just because.

When I worked in the govt. here, everything we did that involved communication via the use of govt. equipment was kept archived by records management for 7 years.

And I was a mere lowly I.t. tech.

I would assume it would be even stricter being high level..

We got a few FOIA's during my time with the FBI. They didn't concern me specifically, but once a FOIA is made, the FBI would send out a notice about the FOIA and the instructions on preserving any relevant information.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Good thing no one cares if he likes the President or not.

An example of the issues that plagues the US ( and seemingly the US only)
One can sue another any time , any place , for any thing.
There are States that have frivolous lawsuit laws and loser pays laws.
But not enough.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

its not a crime to not like the president. This one well, it makes it very easy.

No , but it is against job ethics .
Near everywhere .
Especially the government
And , a person can be terminated for it.
Did you not know that ?
Apparently , some folks post before they think.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Didnt they fire him?

Yes, but Strzok has been volunteering his services at FBI Headquarters this year.

truepundit.com...

As the head of counter-intelligence Strzok had his hands in a lot of projects. He could be helping with orientation and briefings in some way.

originally posted by: carewemust

Yes, but Strzok has been volunteering his services at FBI Headquarters this year.

Unreal, did he lose his security clearance?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

its not a crime to not like the president. This one well, it makes it very easy.

You embarress yourself daily- when will you ever wake up?

Political opinions are fine, manipulating investigations and their outcomes because of those opinions is not.

He was using government property that was given to him to do his government job, he shouldn't have sent personal messages.

you're a joke!

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: carewemust

Yes, but Strzok has been volunteering his services at FBI Headquarters this year.

Unreal, did he lose his security clearance?

No...believe it or not...according to the linked story that is

a reply to: rickymouse

He must pay his attorney not the tax payers.

This is a civil suit.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: rickymouse

He must pay his attorney not the tax payers.

This is a civil suit.

Don't worry, he probably knows some of the skeletons in closets of some of the people in high places, they will settle out of court, for way less than what the initial lawsuit is for. He was working on investigations and probably has dirt on many people.

a reply to: RickinVa

The guy sounds like a royal turd.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

its not a crime to not like the president. This one well, it makes it very easy.

You embarress yourself daily- when will you ever wake up?

Political opinions are fine, manipulating investigations and their outcomes because of those opinions is not.

He was using government property that was given to him to do his government job, he shouldn't have sent personal messages.

you're a joke!

Do we just ignore the IG report that found no wrong doing linked to Strzok's phone messages?

a reply to: RickinVa

Yes you have not expectation of privacy from the government when you use government equip for personal use. If you read the article its not about that even though you are making it out to be that.

The lawsuit is about the government releasing texts to journalists and how he claims he was fired for political reasons.

a reply to: Pyle

Were the texts made on the government phones? If so they can be released. Was he fired for inappropriate use of government property? If so he can be.

Tip: the people defending him in this thread were also putting all their chips on Avenatti ruining Trump.
Discussing any matters with them is literally a waste of energy.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes you have not expectation of privacy from the government when you use government equip for personal use. If you read the article its not about that even though you are making it out to be that.

The lawsuit is about the government releasing texts to journalists and how he claims he was fired for political reasons.

"Yes you have not expectation of privacy from the government when you use government equip for personal use."

Sorry to pop your bubble, but you have no expectation of privacy when using government equip for government use either.


ALL use is subject to monitoring.

a reply to: burntheships

Not sure how this will all play out, but one interesting aspect is that by filing a civil action, Mr. Strock can now be forced to give testimony under oath, which could not be compelled in a criminal matter due to the 5th Amendment. He may be comfortable that he can navigate these waters, but it is also possible that he could find himself falling into a perjury trap.