, 41 tweets, 14 min read Read on Twitter

Starting thread on Strzok Complaint now.....!
@snarkytoes Me and the gang here are going to tweet the stuffing out of this Bad Boy!
@snarkytoes 1. This is a CIVIL, rather than criminal action. Brought directly by Mr. Strzok against DOJ, FBI, Barr, Wray (in official capacities).
@snarkytoes 2. (This and all hereafter, per Complaint) Original disciplinary action designated Candace Will of FBI Office of Professional Responsibility) as "deciding official."
@snarkytoes 3. Candace Will's finding coule be appealed to the FBI's Disciplinary Review Board. So far, so OK.
@snarkytoes 4. Will rejected FBI (assume at Wray level) proposal to FIRE Strzok, proposed demotion and 60 days suspension without pay.
@snarkytoes ONE DAY after Will decision, Strzok was "SUMMARILY FIRED."
@snarkytoes 6. NO provision for appeal (per process) to Disciplinary Review Board (or any other due process) was afforded.
@snarkytoes 7. BRIEF EDITORIAL BREAK: Wow. Something stinks to high heaven.

@snarkytoes 8. The "nubbin" of the Complaint is an assertion that the "lever" leading to the above out-of-the-ordinary action by Bowditch was "the result of unrelenting pressure from President Trump and allies in "Congress and the media.
@snarkytoes 9. Complaint asserts "flagrant violations":

* Public disparagement enable by deliberate/unlawful release of private texts.

* Firing due to exercise of protected political speech.

* Denial of property interest (employment) without due process.
@snarkytoes 10. Complaint asserts "unlawful discharge."
@snarkytoes 10. Pages 4-6 highlight Mr. Strzok's "exceptional career." Just a couple of points, much more there:

* 22 years with the Bureau

* "One of initial case agents on FBI team that ultimately dismantled ring of illegal Russian agents operating in U.S."
@snarkytoes 13. Complaint asserts he was subject to "viewpoint discrimination" by (what I call) the Trumpistan Administration, attacking Strzok's right as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern.
@snarkytoes 14. Furthermore, despite limited controls in 13. provided by The Hatch Act (re political involvement by federal employees), there is a critical "free speech" interest here.
@snarkytoes 15. Important point, Page 7, para 21:

"There has been no assertion...that the political speech engaged in by [Strzok] violated the Hatch Act. This speech was therefore protected under the First Amendment...."
@snarkytoes 16. Double standard. Trump tolerates/encourages partisan political speech that "praises" him/attacks his enemies. [Moe Murph note: The Cult of the Trumpistan]
@snarkytoes EDITORIAL BREAK - Yet another reason why Kellyanne Conway is horrible.

Page 8, carryover para 23.

Conway: "blah, blah, blah...If you're trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it's not going to work. Let me know when the jail sentence starts."
@snarkytoes BOOM:

Page 9, para 26:

"No actions have been taken against agents who expressed harsh criticism of Secretary Clinton...or those in the New York Field Office who LEAKED [sic] negative [Clinton info right before election."
@snarkytoes WOW, Complaint notes that Peter Strzok was not only fired, but had his security clearance withdrawn.

[Moe Murph note: This is incredibly vindictive, and follows a person into the private sector, especially in his field and in the Washington DC job market.]
@snarkytoes The Complaint notes more broadly that the Trump Administration has engaged in punitive attacks on critics that pervert the security concerns of the clearance process, targeting critics "who present no risk to national security."
SEE Page 9, para 27
@snarkytoes Moe Murph edit: Yuck. Some really scoldy, hypocritical stuff - Page 11.

"[y]our vituperative text messages will be the subject of damning public discourse for days, months, and even years to come, and the FBI will be the recipent of the expressed outrage.
@snarkytoes Moe Murph edits (Per above) - Scoldy Stuff (sounds like Rosenstein to me) begs question of why PRIVATE texts were publicly released if they are that gamey. Again, HYPOCRITES!
@snarkytoes RE bias, DOJ OIG report concluded that on HRC email investigation "[Strzok] and FBI attorney [Lisa Page] were among the most vocal members of...team in arguing for the use of aggressive investigative techniques...."
@snarkytoes Statement of management in Strzok's assigned division pre-firing about him:

"you are an extremely talented and intelligent investigator, gifted agent, and hard-working employee."

@snarkytoes OK, getting into the fuzzy stuff. ONE DAY after initial HR decision:

* FBI Deputy Director Bowditch: "I haved reconsidered the AD's punishment and conclude that dismissal is appropriate under the facts of the case."
@snarkytoes Bowditch conceded no bias impact but bafflingly continued:

"...your sustained pattern of bad judgment in the use on an FBI device called into question the decisions made during both the Clinton E-mail investigation and...Russian collusion investigation.

@snarkytoes Page 14, para 39 "Deputy Director Bowdich declared that his decision was "final" and is "not subject to further administrative review."

@snarkytoes Despite Mr. Strzok's request through his lawyer to look into the lack of review, Bowdich did NOT respond, the FBI's Office of General Counsel promised to "look into it" but the FBI TOTALLY BLEW HIM OFF. AFTER 22 YEARS, THE FBI GHOSTED HIM.
@snarkytoes Ick. This is disgusting. What weasels.

Page 16, para 44: "[b]efore the Administration's campaign to demonize and fire Strzok, BOWDICH HIMSELF REASSURED STRZOK that the public disclosure of the texts would not significantly affect Strzok's career at the FBI."
@snarkytoes Trump (BEFORE texts were uncovered) wanted Strzok and Page gone for supposed "disloyalty" and "unfair" targeting of him.
@snarkytoes Page 20, para 54: Firing decision "result of a long and public campaign by President Trump and his allies to vilify Strzok..made possible by DOJ's disclosure of his personal records (violation of Privacy Act).
@snarkytoes Page 20, para 55: during OIG investigation... Strzok text messages "intentionally and wilfully leaked to reporters...."
@snarkytoes For more detail on this process, and the "triangle" of the White House, DOJ, and media, see Pages 20-23 of Complaint.

[EDITORIAL - Moe Murph: Bring some sanitizing hand spray, this is GROSS]
@snarkytoes For more detailed info on the three counts of violation of law outlined in complaint (Protected speech, due process, privacy) see pages 23-25.

Relief sought includes reinstatement, back pay, interest, attorneys fees and "such other relief as the Court deems just.
@snarkytoes "could"
@snarkytoes "enabled"
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to #WhichHe-Poo Murph
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!