Ex-agent Strzok fighting firing from FBI

Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent fired after his attempts to derail the Trump election, has filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the FBI, claiming he was fired due to political pressure from President Donald Trump.

In the lawsuit, filed against Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Strzok also alleged that his First Amendment rights were violated, as was his privacy due to leaks of his text messages to the media.

He seeks back pay and reinstatement to the FBI.

He joined the special counsel’s team shortly after it was formed on May 17, 2017, but was removed from the investigation in late July 2017 after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered that Strzok and his mistress, an FBI lawyer named Lisa Page, had exchanged numerous text messages criticizing Trump.

In some exchanges, Strzok and Page spoke of preventing Trump from winning the 2016 election.

On Aug. 8, 2016, Strzok assured Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president. On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok said that the FBI needed an “insurance policy” in case Trump was elected.

Strzok claims his text messages are protected by the First Amendment.

The lawsuit also alleges that FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich rejected a recommendation from the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility to “suspend and demote, rather than fire” Strzok.

According to the lawsuit, Candice Will, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, rejected a proposal to fire Strzok. Instead, she recommended that Strzok be suspended without pay for 60 days and demoted, the lawsuit says.

If Strzok’s case ends in his favor, it will indicate the “Deep State” is alive and well in the nation’s capital.

And all this time we thought the Hatch Act restricted federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities.

Possibly attempting a coup of a duly elected president is not considered political activity by Strzok or his lawyers.

California to bar Trump on ballot?

Here is a new one. The California Political Review reports that there is a case filed in California to prohibit President Trump’s name to appear on the March primary ballot or the November general election ballot as long as the president does not release his tax forms.

The reporter Stephen Frank writes:

“They know they can not defeat Trump at the polls, so they want to be like Russia, Cuba, Venezuela or other dictatorships – control who is allowed to run for office.”

It appears that California’s ruling elite are not only mindless, they are lawless.

Maybe the state would just like to withdraw from the union.

Would it hurt La-la Land’s feelings to know that few would care?

Of course, no federal court would prohibit the president from running for re-election.

In a book review in another article from the same publication, one James V. Lacy writes about a new book, ‘California’s War Against Donald Trump: Who Wins? Who Loses?’ (It’s available on Kindle for $9.99 and in paperback for $18.95). He writes:

“’California’s War Against Donald Trump’ takes a thorough, analytical look into the clash between Donald Trump’s policies and those of California’s liberal leaders who have mounted a vigorous ‘resistance,’ and reveals just who is winning, and losing, from all the political grandstanding. With hundreds of references cited, dealing with subjects spanning sanctuary city policies, to ‘The Wall,’ to healthcare, education, the temporary travel ban, federal regulatory policy, thwarting enforcement of immigration laws, and especially climate change, the battle between liberal Democrats in Sacramento and Trump and the Republicans in control in Washington, D.C. is vividly detailed, from a perspective that agrees with Trump that California is ‘out of control’ and that politicians would do much better for the state by dropping the hostility and finding some sort of common ground.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading the drive. Newsom, who became governor in January, succeeding Jerry Brown.

Billed as the “Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act,” the law would demand that presidential candidates disclose five years of federal tax returns, in order to be listed on the state’s primary election ballot.

As a candidate in 2017, Newsom supported the bill, prior to Brown’s veto. The current measure on Newsom’s desk today differs little from its predecessor, except that it expands the disclosure requirement to gubernatorial candidates.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told CBS News in a statement.

“The bill also seems to violate the 1st Amendment right of association. California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election,” Murtaugh added.

In the years since candidate Donald Trump first refused to disclose his tax returns, stating they were “under audit,” a flurry of efforts by states to force the release of the filings have sparked heated debate over such a measure’s constitutionality.

McGuire dismissed arguments that his bill was unconstitutional as “hogwash.”

“It’s an easy soundbite to say it’s unconstitutional. But this bill is based off of data and fact, not soundbites. We believe that we will withstand any constitutional tests. And, candidly, I say bring it on,” McGuire told CBS News.

In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that states — in that case, Arkansas — could not add on their own qualifications for congressional candidates.

It is interesting that California officials feel they can prohibit Republican voting.

But, then, California has sanctuary cities where illegal aliens can hide out, in violation of federal law.

The goal, as always, is to find another way to attack the president.

Obviously, the president haters are desperate.

And we thought it was the left that opposed voter suppression.

Michelle To Run?

Left-wing film maker Michael Moore is putting out the word that Michelle Obama will be a candidate for president in 2020.

While that seems hardly likely; Barack Obama’s disastrous tenure should have ruined the chances of another black president for generations.

However, this piece of nonsense posted last week should destroy any chance she might have had.

Michelle Obama reminded attendees at a Naturalization Ceremony on Wednesday that the “Founding Fathers” were not born in America.

She said during her speech, referring to the Declaration of Independence, “It’s amazing that just a few feet from where I’m standing are the signatures of the 56 Founders who put their names on a Declaration that changed the course of history, and like the 50 of you, none of them were (sic) born American. They became American.

Of course, they were not born in America because America had not yet been created.

One researcher noted that only eight of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were not born on soil that became the United States, pointing out that Benjamin Franklin was born in Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison were all born in Virginia. John Adams was born in Massachusetts.

Wickipedia reports the following:

Forty-eight of the 56 signers were born in America (colonies). Two were born in England (Button Gwinnett, Robert Morris), two in Ireland (George Taylor, Matthew Thornton), two in Scotland (James Wilson, John Witherspoon), one in Northern Ireland (James Smith), and one in Wales (Francis Lewis).

The researcher added that her (Michelle’s) lack of understanding was understandable.

Her husband thinks there are 57 states.

Taking exception to the natural-born American qualification to run for president makes it appear the Obamas are still uncomfortable about Barack’s citizenship status. Kenya or Hawaii? Hmm.