UPDATED: Dumb Strzok

As nearly as I can tell, Mark Steyn coined that moniker, but it's being used with new verve as people read the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report on Peter Strzok. The OPR report was released in connection with Strzok's wrongful termination lawsuit.

Much of the report simply goes over details that are now well known. The report confirms that Strzok and Lisa Page were reprehensible individuals who applied different standards to themselves while they investigated others (notably, Hillary Clinton) for doing essentially the same things they did on a daily basis.

It's important to note that the OPR investigation did not deal with the whole issue of FISA--we'll be seeing OIG's report on that within about two weeks. Strzok and Page should figure into OIG's FISA report, although probably not to the same extent as people higher up the chain of command.

To me the one aspect of the report that may have significance for the Barr/Durham investigation is the portion of the report that deals with Strzok's Dereliction of Supervisory Duty. That has to do with Strzok's failure to conduct appropriate investigation in the Clinton email case after the NY FBI (NYO) came into possession of the Weiner laptop, containing hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails.

OPR found that Strzok's explanations simply didn't wash. Those explanations come under five of headings:

1) NYO's delay in processing the laptop 

2) A lack of specific Information about what the NYO had discovered on the laptop 

3) A belief that the laptop did not contain significant new information 

4) The team's focus on the Russia investigation 

5) Legal impediments to reviewing the material on the laptop

OPR dismisses all the supposed legal objections as lacking in substance--in fact, they are excuses rather than reasons. The whole point is that Strzok should have acted immediately to obtain a search warrant for the laptop--but didn't. Had he acted promptly the FBI would have been ready to review the material as the NYO completed processing it and would have been in a position to know exactly what had been discovered. The suggestion that he believed the laptop contained no significant new information is obviously absurd, although it does play into Comey's dismissal of Clinton's criminal behavior as "extremely careless."

A reading of the report shows that Strzok's real reason was #4--he regarded the new emails as just another "lead" to be disposed of, probably sometime in 2017, i.e., after Clinton's election. He explicitly states that the "Russia" investigation--which is to say, the Trump investigation, the investigation of the man he elsewhere texted that the FBI would prevent from becoming president--was much more important.

This determination factors into 1) the unwarranted acceptance of the Steele "dossier" as predication for a full CI investigation as well as 2) the determination to focus on the new Trump administration. It goes toward proving that the investigations of Trump and his associates were based on bias and, significantly, led both to certain concrete investigative steps being taken as well as steps not being taken. This could factor into the larger conspiracy theory.

One other matter that I found remarkable. Comey, in footnote #26, states that in retrospect maybe he should have had two separate investigative teams rather than combining the Hillary email and "Russia" investigations on one team under Strzok.

Coming from a highly experienced prosecutor that's dumbfounding. I certainly hope Barr/Durham are paying attention to that and conducting interviews about that decision. Because it stinks.

UPDATE: Since we're on the topic of the Clinton emails, here's a link to an interview with Senator Ron Johnson. At the 1:45 mark Johnson states that his committee had been investigating the Clinton emails but "pretty much dropped it after the election, pretty much at the direction of President Trump, because he said, 'we don't prosecute people that we beat in elections.'"

Sen. Ron Johnson: "INDICATION" that "A NUMBER OF HIGH LEVEL FBI OFFICIALS" held Offsite Meetings

About The Peter Strzok Lawsuit

I don't have the time to devote specifically to Peter Strzok's claim that he was wrongly fired, nor, frankly, do I have the expertise in administrative processes. However, for anyone interested, I highly recommend Margot Cleveland's article today:

Here’s Your Guide To Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s Lawsuit Demanding His Job Back

Disgraced Trump investigator Peter Strzok probably won’t get tossed out of court right away. But once litigation proceeds, Strzok’s claims will be on shaky grounds.

The article is very thorough and walks you through the whole investigation and firing, as well as Strzok's prospects in court. One thing to note--once again, this was an OPR driven process, not OIG. I stated in a recent comment that I had a lot more confidence in OIG to do the right thing generally than I do in OPR. This does nothing to change my mind in that regard.

Is It A Crime To Leak "Classified Information?"

Commenter Unknown has expressed  a concern that I suspect is shared by many:

Today, Judicial Watch reported that 14 FBI officials were referred to OPR for leaking classified or sensitive information to the media. Four were terminated and none (to date) have been prosecuted.

 I blame myself to some extent for not having addressed this concern in the past. It's an area of law that is little understood by persons who don't deal with it for a living.

Is there an easy answer to the question: Is It A Crime To Leak Classified Information?

The answer is: Yes.

Or: No.

What criminal statute covers the leaking of classified information? OK, that question really does have an easy answer: 18 U.S. Code § 798. Disclosure of classified information. According to this statute,

UPDATED: OIG, OPR, And The Epstein Case

Readers may have noticed references to internal disciplinary matters at DoJ (including the FBI) being handled by both OIG under current IG Michael Horowitz as well as OPR (the Office of Professional Responsibility). I've never looked into the division of responsibilities between the two offices before, but we've seen this in the Russia Hoax and it has arisen once more in the Epstein Case. Wikipedia has a succinct explanation of the division of responsibilities--OPR investigates DoJ attorneys, OIG investigates the peons, non-attorneys:

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is part of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for investigating attorneys employed by the DOJ who have been accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions. The OPR promulgates independent standards of ethical and criminal conduct for DOJ attorneys, while the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has jurisdiction of non-attorney DOJ employees. Corey Amundson became the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility in September, 2018.

The important point is this: OIG, while part of the DoJ, has an independent basis in federal law. OPR has no statutorily independent basis. That doesn't mean that OIG can't be pressured or interfered with by an AG or his DAG (think: Rod Rosenstein), but the OIG has a stronger ground for independent action that steps on political toes than does OPR. Looking forward, the names of Mueller and his entire team of attorneys arise. This helps explain the regular calls for the investigation of the Russia Hoax to be turned over to a US Attorney who can empanel a Grand Jury. Oh, wait--John Durham!

This division has long been a source of of accusations of favorable/lenient treatment of attorneys, often done secretly, i.e., with no public release of findings. This was famously the case with Andrew Weissmann, as recounted by Sidney Powell (Michael Flynn's new lawyer, author of Licensed To Lie). This also suggests that Bruce Ohr's case, for example, is being handled by OPR, as would then probably be the case with all the other DoJ attorneys (prominently David Laufmann and Rod Rosenstein) involved in the Russia Case, including FBI attorneys such as James Baker, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and quite a few more. I may be missing some jurisdictional nuances here, but we need to be aware of this.