Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok has filed a lawsuit in DC federal court seeking reinstatement and back pay as a result of his firing in 2018.

According to the lawsuit (full pdf below) Strzok is claiming his first amendment right to free speech was violated and his fifth amendment right to due process was violated.

Upon initial review, this lawsuit looks like a stunt; motive undetermined, but perhaps related to the pending release of the IG report on FISA abuse where Strzok was a key participant.

A federal civil lawsuit using the DC circuit and the U.S. Constitution as a primary protective assertion does not follow the path of a serious claim for wrongful firing or termination of employment.

Traditionally, and with a genuine claim, wrongful termination actions would go through a formal complaint and review process within the U.S. Department of Labor. Hiring a lawyer and filing a federal civil lawsuit claiming disingenuous constitutional rights violations reeks of an ulterior motive for publicity; ie. purposeful political value in alignment with Strzock’s allies in Lawfare. This is a political stunt… 100%

Peter Strzoks lawyers are: Aitan D. Goelman, from Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Richard A. Salzman and Julia T. Quinn from Heller, Huron, Chertkof & Salzman PLLC.

Here’s the Lawsuit (Cloudfare pdf here and embed pdf below):

.

It would seem that Peter Strzok has been advised by his Lawfare allies to get out ahead of any potential legal risk associated with his involvement in the Trump campaign 2016 spying and surveillance operation(s), by filing a legal action purposeful to claim retaliation in advance of any consequences from the IG report on FISA abuse.

This lawsuit is frivolous on its face. However, it can be purposeful as a political tool to frame a narrative against action by the DOJ inspector general; or any criminal referrals therein. [Conspiracy to commit fraud upon FISA court; conspiracy to commit sedition etc]

Financially I would doubt strongly that Strzok is paying for the lawyers; they are likely being compensated by the Lawfare group participants, and a network of political affiliates, who hold a vested interest in protecting themselves from the downstream consequences of sunlight upon their operation.

Additionally, we have long noted the absence of any media engaging with any of the “small group” participants despite the Mueller report and background relevance to stories. There are no journalist chasing down the former officials for comments…. there are no media satellite trucks in front of their houses… there is no effort to get statements from any of the participants…. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

Therefore, a pending lawsuit can also be used as a shield from having to answer questions; if the IG report substance is of a scale that media cannot continue avoiding.

Peter Strzok, James Baker, Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page