The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 13, 2018, 03:13:17 pm
-
FBI fires Strzok over anti-Trump texts
By Olivia Beavers - 08/13/18 11:10 AM EDT
The FBI on Friday fired Peter Strzok, the controversial counterintelligence agent who came under fire for sending disparaging text messages about President Trump and other political figures during the 2016 election.
Strzok's lawyer Aitan Goelman blasted the decision, saying the "Deputy Director of the FBI overruled the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and departed from established precedent by firing 21-year FBI veteran Peter Strzok."
"The decision to fire Special Agent Strzok is not only a departure from typical Bureau practice, but also contradicts Director Wray’s testimony to Congress and his assurances that the FBI intended to follow its regular process in this and all personnel matters," Goelman said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/401558-fbi-fires-strzok-over-anti-trump-texts (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/401558-fbi-fires-strzok-over-anti-trump-texts)
-
I wonder why it took them so long?
-
PETER STRZOK FIRED FOR ANTI-TRUMP TEXTS
11:13 AM 08/13/2018
Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent
FBI agent Peter Strzok has been fired from the FBI for anti-Trump text messages he sent his mistress and colleague Lisa Page during the 2016 presidential election.
“Late Friday afternoon, the Deputy Director of the FBI overruled the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and departed from established precedent by firing 21-year FBI veteran Peter Strzok,†his lawyer Aitan Goelman said in a statement.â€
More here: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-fired-for-anti-trump-texts/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-fired-for-anti-trump-texts/)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.37ea8f9d6f73 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.37ea8f9d6f73)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html)
-
I wonder why it took them so long?
Under current civil service rules, it is damned near impossible to fire a government employee with more than 6 months on the job.
-
Under current civil service rules, it is damned near impossible to fire a government employee with more than 6 months on the job.
And, despite his lawyer's protestations, I hope they did follow the proper procedures.
-
I wonder why it took them so long?
My first thought/question, exactly.
-
There's one drop of the swamp drained. Next!! :cool:
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/821dee17addc6c6534f1ba76c785dfeb/tenor.gif)
-
This is interesting. The FBI has been protecting Strzok this whole time. Even the FBI director recommended only a demotion and suspension. Yet someone overruled the FBI director and fired Strzok.
-
This is interesting. The FBI has been protecting Strzok this whole time. Even the FBI director recommended only a demotion and suspension. Yet someone overruled the FBI director and fired Strzok.
You mean....someone actually cared more about the reputation of the FBI and the optics of keeping a cretin like Strzok on the payroll... more than they cared about "getting Trump"? Wonder of wonders. Perhaps there is some progress being made re: that swamp draining, then.
-
This is interesting. The FBI has been protecting Strzok this whole time. Even the FBI director recommended only a demotion and suspension. Yet someone overruled the FBI director and fired Strzok.
@Hoodat @XenaLee
Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s lawyer, said FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered the firing on Friday — even though the director of the FBI office that normally handles employee discipline had decided Strzok should face only a demotion and 60-day suspension. Goelman said the move undercuts the FBI’s repeated assurances that Strzok would be afforded the normal disciplinary process.
Strzok is the third high-ranking FBI official involved in the Clinton and Russia investigations to be fired amid an intensely political backdrop. Trump removed Comey as the bureau’s director and said he did so thinking of the Russia case. Attorney General Jeff Sessions later removed Comey’s deputy, McCabe, after the inspector general alleged he lied about a media disclosure related to Clinton.
McCabe — who, unlike Comey, could not be removed at the will of the president — has said his termination was a politically motivated attempt to undermine the Mueller probe. He is currently facing a criminal investigation by prosecutors in the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2660ac114ad (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2660ac114ad)
-
McCabe — who, unlike Comey, could not be removed at the will of the president — has said his termination was a politically motivated attempt to undermine the Mueller probe. He is currently facing a criminal investigation by prosecutors in the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office.
How could Strzok's firing undermine the Mueller probe if Strzok is no longer a part of that probe?
-
I take great pleasure in the fate that has befallen this 1st class unctuous little pr(i)ck! Whoever green lighted the kicking of his ass to the curb is a guy I want to buy a beer.
-
How could Strzok's firing undermine the Mueller probe if Strzok is no longer a part of that probe?
@Hoodat
It was McCabe who made that allegation.
-
@Hoodat @XenaLee
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2660ac114ad (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2660ac114ad)
An apparent attempt to restore the public trust of the FBI, no doubt. But... is it enough? Once lost, trust is extremely difficult to rebuild. Time will tell....
-
An apparent attempt to restore the public trust of the FBI, no doubt. But... is it enough? Once lost, trust is extremely difficult to rebuild. Time will tell....
Not nearly enough as there are several others who need to go as well.
-
I take great pleasure in the fate that has befallen this 1st class unctuous little pr(i)ck! Whoever green lighted the kicking of his ass to the curb is a guy I want to buy a beer.
Better yet, perhaps Deputy Director David L. Bowdich should be made head of the FBI....?
-
I just saw on TV, the FBI gave no reason for firing him.
His lawyer says it can't be the private messages he sent. I had already written the below that it can't be the messages, when I saw this on TV, 11:07 am. Here is what I was writing when I saw this on TV:
The problem they had in trying to fire him was, it is not against the law, or rules of the Justice Department, to send a text or email to someone and express a personal opinion about a candidate for president or a sitting president or the fact you hate broccoli. I haven't researched to find their stated reason(s) for this firing, but it can't be due to those messages; it has to be an action he took that violated their rules. (Now, there is no reason to search for the reasons, as the FBI didn't give any.)
If you on this thread have a job, you can send personal texts, emails, to anyone you want to express your opinion on a subject, including whatever is happening in your company. It is called, freedom of speech. Now, if you send the president of your company a message that you hate his guts, the outcome of that is, you may lose your job. It wasn't a law or rule you broke, it was your less than smart message to your company president.
-
I just saw on TV, the FBI gave no reason for firing him.
His lawyer says it can't be the private messages he sent. I had already written the below that it can't be the messages, when I saw this on TV, 11:07 am. Here is what I was writing when I saw this on TV:
The problem they had in trying to fire him was, it is not against the law, or rules of the Justice Department, to send a text or email to someone and express a personal opinion about a candidate for president or a sitting president or the fact you hate broccoli. I haven't researched to find their stated reason(s) for this firing, but it can't be due to those messages; it has to be an action he took that violated their rules. (Now, there is no reason to search for the reasons, as the FBI didn't give any.)
If you on this thread have a job, you can send personal texts, emails, to anyone you want to express your opinion on a subject, including whatever is happening in your company. It is called, freedom of speech. Now, if you send the president of your company a message that you hate his guts, the outcome of that is, you may lose your job. It wasn't a law or rule you broke, it was your less than smart message to your company president.
How about showing extreme bias.... which you're not supposed to have... against the Commander In Chief, under which you are serving? The president is, essentially, his ultimate 'boss'. Right?
-
I just saw on TV, the FBI gave no reason for firing him.
His lawyer says it can't be the private messages he sent. I had already written the below that it can't be the messages, when I saw this on TV, 11:07 am. Here is what I was writing when I saw this on TV:
The problem they had in trying to fire him was, it is not against the law, or rules of the Justice Department, to send a text or email to someone and express a personal opinion about a candidate for president or a sitting president or the fact you hate broccoli. I haven't researched to find their stated reason(s) for this firing, but it can't be due to those messages; it has to be an action he took that violated their rules. (Now, there is no reason to search for the reasons, as the FBI didn't give any.)
If you on this thread have a job, you can send personal texts, emails, to anyone you want to express your opinion on a subject, including whatever is happening in your company. It is called, freedom of speech. Now, if you send the president of your company a message that you hate his guts, the outcome of that is, you may lose your job. It wasn't a law or rule you broke, it was your less than smart message to your company president.
I believe it is against the law for any public official to abuse his office for political reasons and I will be VERY surprised if Mr. Strozk doesn't find himself facing criminal charges for having done just that.
-
How about showing extreme bias.... which you're not supposed to have... against the Commander In Chief, under which you are serving? The president is, essentially, his ultimate 'boss'. Right?
You can't reason with that one Xena. She reminds me of Paul Revere’s ride, a little light in the belfry.
-
An apparent attempt to restore the public trust of the FBI, no doubt. But... is it enough? Once lost, trust is extremely difficult to rebuild. Time will tell....
I have less than ZERO Trust in any of the Alphabets.
Hell, I have ZERO trust in the government itself, because they have repeatedly demonstrated that it is stupid to do so.
-
You can't reason with that one Xena. She reminds me of Paul Revere’s ride, a little light in the belfry.
I try to reason with everyone, Ghost. It's a stubborn trait, I guess. One that I don't intend to try to change. Especially since.... even re: folks here that I agree with 90% of the time.... I still find issues on which I disagree.
-
I have less than ZERO Trust in any of the Alphabets.
Hell, I have ZERO trust in the government itself, because they have repeatedly demonstrated that it is stupid to do so.
Yes, but I'm more interested in the "public" that makes up the majority of voters in this country. That would not include you, would it? I thought you have "opted out" of voting, henceforth. :shrug:
It remains to be seen if this is just a one-time fluke, or if it will be followed by more much-needed firings. Let's hope it's a trend. Natch... the idiot left media will try spin it as a 'bad thing' and as....
Trump's fault. Whatever works, I say to that. Because I think most Americans want to see more such firings.
-
Yes, but I'm more interested in the "public" that makes up the majority of voters in this country. That would not include you, would it? I thought you have "opted out" of voting, henceforth. :shrug:
I'm voting, I never said I was not voting or not being involved. I'm just not voting for Republicans.
As to the public - we are irrelevant as far has the Alphabets go. They have their own fiefdoms and are populated by Obamanistas in lifelong career positions as political officers.
You're not going to be getting rid of the bulk of those whom now have weaponized Agencies to be used for political warfare.
-
I believe it is against the law for any public official to abuse his office for political reasons and I will be VERY surprised if Mr. Strozk doesn't find himself facing criminal charges for having done just that.
"..to abuse his office"
Documented "abuse" is a reason for firing - an action he took - writing the messages is not "abuse". I just saw on TV the FBI gave NO reason(s) for his firing.
-
"..to abuse his office"
Documented "abuse" is a reason for firing - an action he took - writing the messages is not "abuse". I just saw on TV the FBI gave NO reason(s) for his firing.
So are you going to contribute to the smirking jerkoff's defense fund.
-
I'm voting, I never said I was not voting or not being involved. I'm just not voting for Republicans.
As to the public - we are irrelevant as far has the Alphabets go. They have their own fiefdoms and are populated by Obamanistas in lifelong career positions as political officers.
You're not going to be getting rid of the bulk of those whom now have weaponized Agencies to be used for political warfare.
You're probably right. We only know about the tip of that iceberg. There are probably dozens (hundreds?) of other equally biased and partisan 'Strzok clones' in those agencies, holding on for dear life (like ticks)... and keeping their mouths shut, deleting their emails and hoping they won't be discovered while a Republican dwells in the White House.
As for the voting thing, I stand corrected. happy77
-
Under current civil service rules, it is damned near impossible to fire a government employee with more than 6 months on the job.
Note that they Never said what his GS level was, leads one to believe he was excepted service. The common GS-Career Service are
difficult to dismiss, Excepted service have all the benefits of Career Service, but can be dismissed with or without cause. The left will make a big wind about his dismissal, but it's just wind. They had already fired Page, didn't hear a windstorm about that did we. Oh! Senior Executive Service, and Executive Service can be fired at the drop of a hat.
-
Note that they Never said what his GS level was, leads one to believe he was excepted service. The common GS-Career Service are
difficult to dismiss, Excepted service have all the benefits of Career Service, but can be dismissed with or without cause. The left will make a big wind about his dismissal, but it's just wind. They had already fired Page, didn't hear a windstorm about that did we. Oh! Senior Executive Service, and Executive Service can be fired at the drop of a hat.
So, is there any way to find out what level of service he had?
-
"..to abuse his office"
Documented "abuse" is a reason for firing - an action he took - writing the messages is not "abuse". I just saw on TV the FBI gave NO reason(s) for his firing.
What about 50,000 personal texts on company issued phones, mostly during business hours? Averaging over 100 texts a day?
-
While it wasn't illegal to send the texts he did, it was really stupid to demonstrate his bias against the subject of an investigation he was not only a member of, but the boss. Being really stupid is a fire-able offense.
-
"..to abuse his office"
Documented "abuse" is a reason for firing - an action he took - writing the messages is not "abuse". I just saw on TV the FBI gave NO reason(s) for his firing.
I don't know that they have to. The guys who know the Civil Service rules are better sources than I for that.
-
There are probably dozens (hundreds?) of other equally biased and partisan 'Strzok clones' in those agencies...
Thousands.
They have spent decades installing themselves in those agencies.
Presidents come and go. Congressional control swaps back and forth. Alphabets remain.
These are majority lifelong career jobs outside the purview of accountability to the American people beyond whatever 'leader' is confirmed to place his name on a door for a few years.
They have been politically weaponized, since at least Clinton's first term.
-
What about 50,000 personal texts on company issued phones, mostly during business hours? Averaging over 100 texts a day?
DING DING DING !!! WE HAVE A WINNER !!!
-
He's already started a GoFundMe begging page...
https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok (https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok)
$13,464 of $150,000 goal in 2 hours.
I'm sure it will more than meet its goal.
-
This should put additional strain on the marriage.
-
So are you going to contribute to the smirking jerkoff's defense fund.
@The Ghost
Reporting facts - not taking sides.
-
What about 50,000 personal texts on company issued phones, mostly during business hours? Averaging over 100 texts a day?
Of course, a company can make a rule the employee cannot use a company phone for anything except business. That was not the case here.
-
I don't know that they have to. The guys who know the Civil Service rules are better sources than I for that.
@Cyber Liberty
They may not have to, however, it leaves the public wondering.
-
Of course, a company can make a rule the employee cannot use a company phone for anything except business. That was not the case here.
But they may consider excessive personal time during working hours and issue as well.
-
@Victoria33 @XenaLee @thackney @Cyber Liberty all
Hatch Act of 1939
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
In 1993 the advocates for removing or modifying restrictions on the political activities of federal employees succeeded in enacting the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 (107 Stat. 1001) that removed the prohibition on participation in "political management or political campaigns." Federal employees are still forbidden to use their authority to affect the results of an election. They are also forbidden to run for office in a partisan election, to solicit or receive political contributions, and to engage in political activities while on duty or on federal property[/quote]
-
FBI agent Peter Strzok has been fired from the FBI for anti-Trump text messages he sent his mistress and colleague Lisa Page during the 2016 presidential election.
“Late Friday afternoon, the Deputy Director of the FBI overruled the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and departed from established precedent by firing 21-year FBI veteran Peter Strzok,†his lawyer Aitan Goelman said in a statement.â€
Strzok’s text messages to Page revealed significant bias against then candidate Donald Trump and even one in which he pledged “we’ll stop†him from becoming president. Strzok played a central role in the investigation of the Trump 2016 campaign and its alleged ties to the Russian government along with the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Strzok was also briefly employed by special counsel Robert Mueller but was removed from the investigation because of his text messages and dalliance with a colleague.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-fired-for-anti-trump-texts/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-fired-for-anti-trump-texts/)
-
I really wanted to slap him during the hearings, but this works too.
-
You are WAY late to this party @Emjay
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,328055.msg1766010.html#msg1766010 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,328055.msg1766010.html#msg1766010)
-
You are WAY late to this party @Emjay
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,328055.msg1766010.html#msg1766010 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,328055.msg1766010.html#msg1766010)
Dam. Is all the food gone?
-
Topics merged.
@Bigun is in charge of food.
-
This is interesting. The FBI has been protecting Strzok this whole time. Even the FBI director recommended only a demotion and suspension. Yet someone overruled the FBI director and fired Strzok.
It is interesting. I posted a thread in politics and I still think that is where this topic belongs but, oh, well.
Strzok was a stain on the FBI and there have been far too many stains on that once vaunted organization lately.
-
Peter Strzok Reacts To Firing On Newly Created Twitter Account
Daily Caller, Aug 13, 2018, Chuck Ross
Former FBI official Peter Strzok has reacted to his firing from the FBI, saying on a newly-created Twitter account that he was “deeply saddened†by the decision.
Strzok, the former deputy chief of counterintelligence, was fired Friday following an investigation into anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with his mistress, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
“It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the FBI,†Strzok wrote, linking to a Go Fund Me page that has been set up to raise money on his behalf.
Jennifer Kay, a spokeswoman for Strzok’s attorney, confirmed the authenticity of the account.
More: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-twitter-account/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-twitter-account/)
-
I just saw on TV, the FBI gave no reason for firing him.
His lawyer says it can't be the private messages he sent. I had already written the below that it can't be the messages, when I saw this on TV, 11:07 am. Here is what I was writing when I saw this on TV:
The problem they had in trying to fire him was, it is not against the law, or rules of the Justice Department, to send a text or email to someone and express a personal opinion about a candidate for president or a sitting president or the fact you hate broccoli. I haven't researched to find their stated reason(s) for this firing, but it can't be due to those messages; it has to be an action he took that violated their rules. (Now, there is no reason to search for the reasons, as the FBI didn't give any.)
If you on this thread have a job, you can send personal texts, emails, to anyone you want to express your opinion on a subject, including whatever is happening in your company. It is called, freedom of speech. Now, if you send the president of your company a message that you hate his guts, the outcome of that is, you may lose your job. It wasn't a law or rule you broke, it was your less than smart message to your company president.
How about the fact that he sent those texts to another member of the FBI and that they referred to 'stopping Trump.'
That should be punishable in any sane universe.
-
What's being funded through Strozok's GoFundMe page?
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html)
FBI official Peter Strzok, who played a lead role in both the Russian meddling and Hillary Clinton email probes but became a political lightning rod after the revelation of anti-Trump text messages, has been fired.
Strzok attorney Aitan Goelman said in a statement Monday that his client, a 21-year FBI veteran, was fired Friday afternoon, claiming this was a departure from standard practice and politically motivated. Goelman said bureau Deputy Director David Bowdich “overruled†the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility to remove him.
“This decision should be deeply troubling to all Americans,†the attorney said.
Strzok appeared to launch a new Twitter account to fire back, saying he's "deeply saddened" by the decision and linking to a GoFundMe page.
more at link...
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1029035185218699264 (https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1029035185218699264)
Peter Strzok @petestrzok
Deeply saddened by this decision. It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the FBI. https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok (https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfdbvLXcAAH-gV.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfdbvLXcAAH-gV.jpg)
The gofundme page has a goal of $150,000. It's almost halfway after 8 hours.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html)
more at link...
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1029035185218699264 (https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1029035185218699264)
Peter Strzok @petestrzok
Deeply saddened by this decision. It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the FBI. https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok (https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfdbvLXcAAH-gV.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfdbvLXcAAH-gV.jpg)
The gofundme page has a goal of $150,000. It's almost halfway after 8 hours.
Especially the fine women, right Pete?
I thought this belonged in politics and started a thread here but it was moved to scandal.
-
Peter Strzok's GoFundMe seeks $150K to cover legal costs
https://www.axios.com/peter-strzok-gofundme-fbi-firing-baaa52e1-2f54-42fc-896c-7f8c4f194782.html (https://www.axios.com/peter-strzok-gofundme-fbi-firing-baaa52e1-2f54-42fc-896c-7f8c4f194782.html)
-
Especially the fine women, right Pete?
I thought this belonged in politics and started a thread here but it was moved to scandal.
Thanx for pointing that out. I agree it belongs in politics.
-
topics merged.
-
Interesting twist :pondering:
Bernard Kerik
Verified account @BernardKerik
So the @FBI Agent responsible for interviewing @GenFlynn has been fired. Doesn’t that create a credibility issue? It’s time for the government to fix this mess and dismiss the charges against General #Flynn
4:23 PM - 13 Aug 2018
https://twitter.com/BernardKerik/status/1029146393053671434/photo/1
-
I wonder how many violations of the Hatch Act one must accumulate in order to be prosecuted?
-
Peter Strzok @petestrzok
Deeply saddened by this decision. It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the FBI.
Unfortunately, he did not display the same degree of honor for his wife.
-
Unfortunately, he did not display the same degree of honor for his wife.
There is a lot of that going around these days.
-
I wonder how many violations of the Hatch Act one must accumulate in order to be prosecuted?
That depends. Are you talking about you and me or are you talking about well-placed politicians and bureaucrats?
-
That depends. Are you talking about you and me or are you talking about well-placed politicians and bureaucrats?
I hear you! In this case let's confine it to swamp critters.
-
I hear you! In this case let's confine it to swamp critters.
Then there's NO limit.
-
Then there's NO limit.
So it would appear. And I cannot tell you how sad that is for this once great republic.
-
Unfortunately, he did not display the same degree of honor for his wife.
True. But neither did he display any degree of honor for his country and the fine men and women at the FBI.
-
Peter Strzok's GoFundMe seeks $150K to cover legal costs
https://www.axios.com/peter-strzok-gofundme-fbi-firing-baaa52e1-2f54-42fc-896c-7f8c4f194782.html (https://www.axios.com/peter-strzok-gofundme-fbi-firing-baaa52e1-2f54-42fc-896c-7f8c4f194782.html)
Three days after being fired from the FBI, "friends" of former agent Peter Strzok launched a GoFundMe account seeking $150,000 to offset "Pete’s hefty – and growing – legal costs and his lost income." The account raised more than $35,000 in the first five hours.
How is this money taxed? Anyone know?
-
How is this money taxed? Anyone know?
Unless a go fund me account automatically puts you into some 501 c status, it would be regular income.
-
Unless a go fund me account automatically puts you into some 501 c status, it would be regular income.
Thanks @Bigun
-
Rep. Jim Jordan
Verified account @Jim_Jordan
Strzok fired today. Never forget:
Director Comey: fired
Dep Dir McCabe: fired
Chief Counsel Baker: demoted, left
Chief of Staff Rybicki: left
FBI Counsel Page: demoted, then left
Dep Dir of Counterintel Strzok: demoted, FIRED
Never seen a federal agency where that’s happened
12:49 PM - 13 Aug 2018
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1029092597481070592?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
What's being funded through Strozok's GoFundMe page?
His current and future standard of living.
-
Until the corruption in the DOJ and FBI has actual consequences it will continue.
These people believe they are above the law and the gate keepers of Government.
And so far they've been proven correct.
-
Somewhere in my reading this morning I saw where a former FBI OPR employee said Strzok was fired for "lack of candor" relater to his presentation of the basis for FISA warrants. I'll try to find the link.
-
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch: “The Strzok firing is as much about the Mueller operation as anything else. There would be no Mueller Special Councel to investigate so called collusion but for the machinations of Strzok & his colleagues at the top levels of the FBI. We know this...
....guy was corrupt and had anti-Trump animus. Strzok and others at the FBI should be criminally investigated for the way the conducted this investigation. Instead, Mueller is pretending nothing went wrong. He used Strzok, he used the Clinton DNC Dossier...the whole thing....
....should be shut down. The Strzok firing shows that the fundamental underpinnings of the investigation were corrupt. It should be shut down by the courts or by honest prosecutors.†Thank you Judicial Watch, I couldn’t have said it better myself!
4:13 AM - 14 Aug 2018
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029321624603054080?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029323499226243072?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029325115547369472?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
888high58888
-
Somewhere in my reading this morning I saw where a former FBI OPR employee said Strzok was fired for "lack of candor" relater to his presentation of the basis for FISA warrants. I'll try to find the link.
Is this it? @ConstitutionRose
The Real Reasons Peter Strzok was Fired from the FBI
SaraCarter.com, Aug 13, 2018, Sara Carter
[...]
“Strzok was under oath before Congress and he made statements that appeared to be false and refused to answer some questions, but he was going to get just a slap on the wrist,†said a former supervisory special agent from OPR adjudication, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the nature of their work. “There is absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to lack of candor in the FBI…unless you’re an SES (Senior Executive Service).
Strzok’s firing went well beyond texting about Trump. Strzok would have also been involved in the handling of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application to the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)…†The agent noted that Strzok was “well aware that he was lying by deception when they did not include the information on who paid for the dossier and (that) Bruce Ohr was back-channeling information for a discredited source.â€
More: https://saraacarter.com/the-real-reasons-peter-strzok-was-fired-from-the-fbi/
-
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Lou Dobbs: “This cannot go forward...this Special Councel with all of his conflicts, with his 17 Angry Democrats, without any evidence of collusion by the Trump Campaign and Russia. The Dems are the ones who should be investigated.†Thank you Lou, so true!
4:21 AM - 14 Aug 2018
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029327223269060609?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
And through it all President Trump has remained remarkably patient with the political process, considering he knew from the very beginning that the Russia collusion angle at its heart has been nothing but a sick conspiracy to damage him and his administration.
Yet, he has not engaged in any self pity, despite the daily media lies being told about his presidency and his honor.
-
Unless a go fund me account automatically puts you into some 501 c status, it would be regular income.
I expected it would be treated as a gift.
-
Sara Carter writes:
The Real Reasons Peter Strzok was Fired from the FBI
Former FBI agents say the text messages are not the only reason Strzok was fired
By Sara Carter | August 13, 2018 | 9:04 PM EDT
There are certainly more than just the anti-Trump text messages sent by former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok that led the second in command at the FBI to fire him. FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich actually overruled a recommendation by the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to suspend and demote the former senior agent, and instead, terminated Strzok on Friday.
But, what could have led FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich, to make the decision to overrule OPR? Why didn’t FBI Director Christopher Wray take charge and fire Strzok himself? And more importantly, why would OPR recommend Strzok–who was charged with handling the investigation into alleged collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia–only receive a 60-day suspension and demotion? ...
Former FBI special agents, some of whom worked with OPR for years, said they agree with Bodwich’s decision. They told SaraACarter.com that the system is broken and Bodwich had no other choice but to step in and fire Strzok. They say political leanings, friendships and dual systems of justice inside OPR have plagued how cases regarding FBI agents are adjudicated and handled.
“Strzok was under oath before Congress and he made statements that appeared to be false and refused to answer some questions, but he was going to get just a slap on the wrist,†said a former supervisory special agent from OPR adjudication, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the nature of their work. “There is absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to lack of candor in the FBI…unless you’re an SES (Senior Executive Service). Strzok’s firing went well beyond texting about Trump. Strzok would have also been involved in the handling of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application to the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)…†The agent noted that Strzok was “well aware that he was lying by deception when they did not include the information on who paid for the dossier and (that) Bruce Ohr was back-channeling information for a discredited source.â€
“Strzok knew they were not putting the application in the right context,†the former FBI supervisory special agent added. “If there was the slightest doubt if that application was not 100 percent true, then that application would not go forward.†...
Read the whole story (https://saraacarter.com/the-real-reasons-peter-strzok-was-fired-from-the-fbi/)
-
Unless a go fund me account automatically puts you into some 501 c status, it would be regular income.
@Bigun @Right_in_Virginia
Donations made to GoFundMe campaigns are usually considered to be "personal gifts" which, for the most part, aren’t taxed as income.
However, there may be particular case-specific instances where the income is in fact taxable (depending on amounts received, use of the funds, etc.), so we recommend that you maintain adequate records of donations received and consult a tax professional to be sure.
https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-GoFundMe-Donations-and-Income-Taxes
- - - - - - - - -
https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/4160828-i-received-money-from-a-gofundme-greater-than-14-000-where-can-i-put-that-personal-gift
This is an area of tax that's still developing. The IRS has handed out big tax bills to people who have received large sums of money on go fund me in the last couple of years (many are still being fought as they can be considered gifts). In order to be non-taxable funds generally have to come through a qualifying charitable organization or be considered gifts (which normally only the payor would have tax liability if excess gifting). If the funds are considered gifts then there are no tax implications for the recipient.
The issue at hand is the 1099-K that the IRS requires be sent to recipient.
Typically, money raised through a crowdfunding site such as Go Fund Me is processed through third-party settlement entities. IRS rules for those processing entities are very clear regarding the requirement to issue the 1099-K:
The settlement of third-party payment network transactions above the minimum reporting thresholds of
* gross payments that exceed $20,000, and
* more than 200 such transactions.
-
As a practical matter, I wonder how this firing affects the rest or Mueller's witch hunt? Strzok was undoubtedly using his continuing employment to keep a lid on the accusations against him.
-
Until the corruption in the DOJ and FBI has actual consequences it will continue.
These people believe they are above the law and the gate keepers of Government.
And so far they've been proven correct.
@DB
You are entirely right! And the consequences need to be personal and severe. Not like the IRS paying off the groups they screwed over with OUR tax money!
-
Sara Carter writes:Read the whole story (https://saraacarter.com/the-real-reasons-peter-strzok-was-fired-from-the-fbi/)
Just further confirmation that the swamp is wide, deep and destructive of democracy.
-
Just further confirmation that the swamp is wide, deep and destructive of democracy.
I think this Strzok character has been the keystone holding things up...
-
Sara Carter writes:Read the whole story (https://saraacarter.com/the-real-reasons-peter-strzok-was-fired-from-the-fbi/)
@mountaineer
Haven't yet read the story so I wonder if it mentions the fact that the person currently running the OPR was put there by none other than Mr. Mueller himself.
-
I wonder when his book will be published. They always write a book.
-
Somewhere in my reading this morning I saw where a former FBI OPR employee said Strzok was fired for "lack of candor" relater to his presentation of the basis for FISA warrants. I'll try to find the link.
Well.... isn't "lack of candor" the politically correct way to say he either lied or he withheld testimony?
-
I wonder when his book will be published. They always write a book.
Maybe he won't need to now... with that GoFundMe page.
On second thought... nah. He'll have a book written. Their greed makes them do it.
-
Maybe he won't need to now... with that GoFundMe page.
On second thought... nah. He'll have a book written. Their greed makes them do it.
And, you know some big company will fund it and be eager to get the dirt out to the public.
-
Somewhere in my reading this morning I saw where a former FBI OPR employee said Strzok was fired for "lack of candor" relater to his presentation of the basis for FISA warrants. I'll try to find the link.
@ConstitutionRose
Is the Fix In at Justice?
Announce bad news on a Friday afternoon, the rule in official Washington goes. Attorney General Eric Holder seems to have a new corollary: Make bad appointments over holiday breaks.
It works. Holder’s announcement on Christmas Eve that he was appointing Robin Ashton as the new head of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) went virtually unnoticed in the press, other than a highly complimentary article in the Washington Post.
That’s unfortunate, considering how important this position is. OPR investigates ethics violations by Justice Department lawyers. It should be headed by someone who does not place partisanship above the law, and who has the highest ethical standards and a sterling reputation. Robin Ashton does not fit that bill. Indeed, Ashton’s antics at DOJ have often been so petty and juvenile that she should be disqualified from serving in any career leadership position at Justice, much less the one responsible for enforcing ethical standards.
Why, given the well-deserved black eye that OPR has suffered over the last year for its politically tilted investigations, would Holder appoint a hyper-Democratic loyalist such as Ashton to run the office? Perhaps because the über-political Holder wants to solidify the liberal bias that already pervades OPR and thereby ensure that the political machinations of his minions are glossed over (if not outright ignored).
Excerpt: More here. (https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-fix-justice)
-
And, you know some big company will fund it and be eager to get the dirt out to the public.
Some big company.... or some big "oligarch" (they love that word, don't they). At the risk of being redundant... the name Soros keeps popping into my head. I can't help it. :shrug: