Talk:Peter Strzok

Another case of Wikipedia bias

Ah, another wonderful case of Wikipedia bias. Keep draging Wikipedia throught the mud and chasing anyone who complains. The selection of "sources" in this article is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.195.40 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

I had my edit reversed. This article is a puff piece for Peter Strzok and makes no mention of the fact that he had a relationship with attorney Lisa Page. Furthermore, it is a hit piece on Fox News. 172.249.178.198 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The article already contained this sentence before you made your edit: "Allegedly, Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair." Perhaps you missed that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Closed as  Not done: per above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Since this article is biographical, it needs mention of Strzok's relationship with Lisa Page. Otherwise, it should be retitled to something like "Strzok-Page Political Text Messaging Scandal". Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fox News Section seems oversized and overwrought

This whole section seems like some editor has a very personal axe to grind about Fox news. I know that it can be irritating to see news outlets that you feel are biased push story lines that you think are false, but lets get back to what this article is about: Peter Strzok. Having two long paragraphs about a single news outlet seems obsessive.

Factually I think Fox gets more of their news from Gateway Pundit and other web reporters than vice versa.

"Other news outlets covered Johnson's claims in the appropriate context," - this seems to summarize the POV of the author, but again, it's not really a neutral encyclopedia part of an bio.

ZeroXero (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Fox News' rhetoric regarding Strzok has received extensive RS coverage, and is thus perfectly legitimate for inclusion. The sole reason why Strzok is known at all (and why this Wikipedia article exists) is because Fox News and the Republican Party created a faux controversy over him. It makes perfect sense that now that the scandal around Strzok has settled down and shown to be a complete nothingburger that the focus is on those who created the faux controversy and used it to try to create a constitutional crisis. That's at least what RS coverage began to be about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

just curious, but do you still think that its a "faux" controversy? Even if it ended up having no effect on the investigation, do you really think that it isn't controversial at all to have the person leading the investigation of both candidates in the presidential election to say that "we will stop him"...? --Thesowismine (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Appropriate context" reflects the language of the RS that's cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That it's the "appropriate context" should be evident from the facts presented in the paragraph. We don't need to force feed this to our readers, we can let the reader decide. ^Falling_Gravity 17:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

2601:248:8300:3C30:11E2:3E40:A151:6AE0 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC) This incredibly biased article is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is widely regarded a joke. Just page after page of left-wing garbage pretending (unsuccessfully) that it maintains a neutral POV.

I just checked it and the coverage is appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed the exact same claim was covered in a preceding paragraph. This could mean we were giving UNDUE coverage to an apparently false claim by repeating it (even if we do debunk it both times). I've tried to merge these two paragraphs. ^Falling_Gravity 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. A Solomonic solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The best part about the Fox News section is the rebuttal that goes something like "political scientists and experts reject... Fox News' claims" - quoted from a competing news source. Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is vague and misleading

"A February 2018 comprehensive review by The Wall Street Journal of Strzok's messages showed that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump".[13]". The word "showed" should be changed to "claimed". NPOV problem. Also, "represent a fraction of the..." is rather meaningless: What "fraction"? 1 message would be a "fraction". 6,999 messages would also be a "fraction". "Fraction" merely means that not every message was critical of Trump. If that's the case, why not just say that? Also, it's amazing that it claims "...show no evidence of a conspiracy". That conclusion is so intertwined with the POV of the person who wrote the WSJ article. Would that author have admitted the opposite: That it did 'show evidence of a conspiracy'? 71.8.171.3 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We don't use "claim" - it's explicitly a word to avoid, see WP:CLAIM. Your ridiculous parsing of the common meaning of the word "fraction" is similarly not helpful here. The statement is presented as a factual review, and in the absence of any reliable source arguing that the WSJ (a reliable source for news reporting) analysis is wrong, we have no reason to present it as wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "stated" instead of "showed". The WSJ article did actually state something; whether they actually found something is subject to dispute. These words are placed to be in the voice of WP. POV is important: WP should not vouch, explicitly or implicitly, for the accuracy of media references. You failed to address the issue of fraction: My analysis is correct: That statement is hopelessly ambiguous as written. It invites confirmation bias: It can be interpreted dramatically differently by people of different opinions. 71.8.171.3 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused why this is even included, why does this stat have any significance. Is it really surprising that he texted about other things more than this one single thing? I can't even imagine how it could be a majority unless the he was literally insane. --Thesowismine (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Neilen (a single-purpose account) adds inaccurate language to article

User:Neilen made some changes that distorted the language of a cited source, I reverted the user, and then user then violated the editing guidelines for this article by starting to edit-war with me. Strzok wanted to establish "a special counsel" investigation led by Fitzgerald.[1] He did not want Fitzgerald to lead a pre-existing FBI investigation (which Neilen suggests happened). I'm not sure what the intent of the edit is except to obscure what Strzok wanted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In relation to this, it should be noted that for all intents and purposes the current Mueller special counsel investigation is indeed a continuation of an existing FBI counter Intelligence Investigation. This is evident in Assistant Attorney General Rosensteins document appointing the special counsel and describing the boundaries of the special counsels investigation. see https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20th 2017...

P.S. Language is vitally important there is a difference between Special Counsellor and Special Prosecutor. Chepup63 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

An edit war with you? You have made only two edits on this article. Neither was reverted by Neilen (who is now blocked). Something is not adding up here. Have you previously edited using a different account? Lard Almighty (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For Lard Almighty: You might be getting Chepup63 and Snooganssnoogans confused, as Chepup63 did not indent their comment above following Snooganssnoogans posting of 2 May 2018. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Page has resigned

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/04/lisa-page-resign-fbi/

Xerton (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Devlin Barrett reference and allegation of romantic affair.

In light of the complete undo on my change regarding the Devlin Barrett reference: Firstly simply undoing the change I made is no longer the best solution. It simply ignores the issues I raised, We need to find a better solution.

The fact is Devlin Barrett was the media contact McCabe, Page and Strzok used to shape favourable narratives in the media. Barrett was the journalist this group had chosen as the most favourable to reporting their preferred narrative. With Page demonstrably talking to Barrett several times as seen within the Strzok/Page messages, the assumption is that she is talking to Barrett for her Boss Deputy Director McCabe in an authorized and procedurally correct manner.

However, regardless of whether authorized or procedurally correct, Barrett cannot be considered an objective source. At best reading he has been reporting in a manner that aligns with how the FBI and specifically McCabe, Strzok, Page would wish their activities to be reported. At worst Barrett is just a mouthpiece for the views of McCabe, Strzok and Page. Either way Barrett is not a credible or objective source when writing about Strzok, Page, McCabe. But it gets worse, much worse.

The FBI has strict guidelines and procedures about talking or dissemanting to the media. The Inspector General of the DOJ "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe" concluded that McCabe engaged in leaking to the media in a self serving manner. His objectives being to promote narratives that were of personal benefit. The Report concluded McCabe had violated FBI codes in his leaks to the media, specifically Devlin Barrett. The leaks will be considered as unauthorized and improper leaks at any subsequent indictment hearings.

I vote that the whole sentence simply be deleted as an unreliable source and because it is ultimately irrelevant. I believe the romantic affair narrative is unverified and may even be disinfo given out by the parties or the FBI to shape the narrative. There is no evidence to support a romantic affair in any of the texts, Strzok and Page sent each other.

The most simple answer may well be Strzok and Page are possibly just chatterboxes who cannot stop Messenging with each other while engaged in sensitive if not classified investigations. Unrestrained chatterboxes blabbing classified details to each other is a bad look for the FBI. While still bad, if they were having 'a secret affair' their chatterbox behaviour could be at least understood on some level. However Barrett being the first to report the romantic affair leads me to disbelieve it as Barrett has a provable relationship with all the parties. Barrett has worked with Page many times to shape narratives more favourable to the FBI or self serving and more favourable to themselves.

All of this means that the following is not a reliable reference and may well be another shaping of the narrative attempt by Page or Strzok or McCabe. Besides it now seems out of context with the sentences around it. I vote it be deleted in it's entirety.

Devlin Barrett from The Washington Post alleged Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair.[45] Barrett, Devlin (December 15, 2017). "FBI officials' text message about Hillary Clinton said to be a cover story for romantic affair". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 16, 2017.

Chepup63 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf

Break out "Strzok Page text messages" as new seperate wikipedia page

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for original research or partisan political attacks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose consideration be given to the creation of a seperate wikipedia page devoted to the phenomonen of the Strzok Page text messages. Here are a small fraction of the reasons for this; 1. The Strzok Page messages provide insight during unprecedented events involving the FBI and DOJ in 2016. Strzok and Page are in the centre of these actions. The release of the voluminous text messages between a DOJ counsel to the Deputy Director of the FBI and an FBI Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Unit was controversial and unprecedented. However they have proven to be crucial to those citizens and journalists investigating the events surrounding the 2016 US elections between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and the activities of the FBI, Obama Administration and the US intelligence community. With multiple overlapping historical and political events, investigations and controversies occurring in 2016, some surrounding the election and many subject to classified redaction, citizens and journalists have found it challenging, if not practically impossible to create timelines and determine who knew what and when they knew it. The protangonists Strzok and Page are placed at the very centre of historical events surrounding Clintons email investigation and the controversial ending of it by FBI Director Comey, it's re-opening on the eve of the election and closing again. As revelations continue to emerge of an investigation and surveillance of candidate Trump and his campaign Strzok and Page are both right at the centre of matters or close to people involved. As well, with new information dropping daily about the continued investigation and surveillance of President elect and then President Trump by a small group within the FBI, incredibly Strzok and Page are found to be part of the group. Finally with the ongoing Mueller Special Counsel investigation, once more Strzok and Page are part of Muellers team for the first month until he is alerted about their indiscrete messages. 2. Events involving and surrounding Strzok and Page are historic events that challenge the Consitution and the foundations of the Republic While this story continues to unfold and is a highly political and dividing issue, one thing everyone can agree on, the events herein are historic, hit at the fundaments of the US constitution and the freedoms that form the foundations of the Republic. The Strzok Page texts are contemporaneous records of fact, gossipy opinion, crucial time stamps of known events and pointers to who knew what and when they knew it. They also give insight into the character and psychology of the protagionists themselves, their colleagues, the FBI and DOJ at a historically crucial time. 3. The Strzok Page text messages have enabled an accurate event timeline to be constructed. Strzok and Page while both working within the FBI and both involved in some cases were also seperated in function and department to the point that their communications form a nexus that eventually catch almost all senior managemenmt within the FBI. As well Page being a DOJ secondment to the FBI has connections in the DOJ that exceed those of any normal FBI employee. Many events not connected to them are casually mentioned in passing or checked in their messages. Crucially, where fragmented or redacted official documents offer part of the recorded events, additional facts become obvious when the message time line is overlayed. 4. Granular details reveal previously unconnected events. The gossipy informal nature of the text messages and the fact they are recording the immediate present of Strzok and Page have allowed for verification and timestamping of events they themselves are only peripherally involved with. There are many instances where it's noted that a particular person chatted with them, was seen at a particular location, was calling them, had called them, was scheduled, had cancelled etc etc. Once again allowing hitherto unknown details about other persons associated to the FBI/DOJ. Crucially, with all the activity taking place around the FBI and DOJ this has proved invaluable to events far removed from Strzok and Pages activities. 5. Strzok Page texts are an important and oft referred resource by citizens and journalists investigating multiple events from 2016/2017. Faced with classified documents and redactions, citizens and journalists investigating the events of 2016 and 2017 have found the Strzok Page texts to be an invaluable and often quoted resource. Until unredacted, complete or unclassified documents are released by the DOJ and FBI, the Strzok Page texts will remain a central unchallenged resource and reference. Increasingly without full Government disclosure the texts will be the only roadmap/timeline citizens and journalists can use to check new claims, court testimony or participant confessions. It should be noted that all indications point to June 2018 being the commencement of widespread indictments and arrests for crimes that were politically hushed or dropped by the Obama administration (all the evidence of these are on hand, waiting only on the removal of roadblocking judiciary (judges). 6. The Strzok Page texts show a mindset that leads to involvement in a conspiracy to damage a Presidential candidate then remove a legally elected President The Strok Page texts have come to represent far more than the lame attempts to suggest they are salacious lovers messages. In fact there is no evidence within the texts of any romantic involvement at all. They chronicle two hard working professionals at the FBI conducting normal friendly gossipy, at times venting chat via text. What makes them noteworthy is their political overtones and the fact that both Strzok and Page gravitate to be part of a small group assisting in the surveillance of a Presidential candidates campaign by the Government of the candidates political adversery. Page and Strzok believe they are protecting democracy when pause and reflection should have had them conclude they were interfering in Democracy. This conclusion will be borne out by impending release of the Inspector Generals report, Muellers Investigation and Hubers prosections. There are plenty of reasons to make this a seperate page. In my mind the historical aspect of the events surrounding Strzok and Page and their commentary from ground zero is researchers gold. The fact that the Strzok Page texts are currently a highly valued research resouce is noteworthy. see https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ for typical use of the texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepup63 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose – Looks like a WP:POVFORK. Also, I don't think the cited political blog is a reliable source, especially for a WP:BLP. FallingGravity 00:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

what a horribly biased article.

This page is incredibly biased. And I cant fix it up because its protected.

Please allow editing so we can fix.

2600:1008:B06E:115B:4C6C:B618:701:5263 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make suggestions for improvement on talk. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does the intro say he "...led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference..."" when the citations for that sentence only say he was "tapped to help lead". He was certainly not the overall leader of the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.222.116 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is horrible, it should be presenting facts, and not Democrat spin on the facts. How is "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it." spinned as Republican and conservative "accusation". Guy said he plans to do something to stop Trump. And he was working on investigation of Trump's opponent. You do not need to be a flat earther to think he may have done something to help Hillary/ hurt Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.4.119 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Need to add a section about his pledge to stop Trump

From the IG report:

Horowitz cited this exchange in particular:

• Page: [Mr. Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
• Strzok: No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.

Strzok later stated that his text was sent to reassure Page, rather than stop Trump from being elected President. Strzok's attorney stated that he "was never influenced by political views.”

A section? No, not for something which never happened. Talk is cheap. He also wanted to investigate Clinton more aggressively, which shows he wasn't exactly a fan of hers. His skepticism of Trump was the only proper reaction, considering his knowledge of how Trump was compromised by Putin and how the Trump campaign was so closely tied to Russian attempts to help Trump win the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

considering his knowledge of how Trump was compromised by Putin- what are you talking about? --Thesowismine (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In Affirmation of Perceived Personal Bias in Favor of Subject

New to editing articles, I believe the minor submission I made today has been correctly done in terms of form, citation, etc. I'm noticing a potential bias in this article (in which bias itself is an issue of primary importance) which appears to be corroborated by previous editors.

On that issue I would qualify myself a fan of Wikipedia as a quick and efficient way to get 'up to speed' on nearly any topic. In believing I'm not alone in relying on this source before further research on any given subject is undertaken, it concerns me that an undue influence appears to have slanted this article in favor of the subject rather than remaining neutral. It would almost appear that someone within the agency this subject has been affiliated with has taken an undue interest in cleaning up some of the seamier aspects of this article. There is no mention that I could find, for example, regarding the extramarital affair the subject had been involved in, a central point in the majority of reporting contributing to this article.

With an acknowledgement that the FBI has taken multiple hits due to the salacious verbiage used, the stark bias revealed in subject's text messages, and apparent attempts to cover up the worst of these messages, it should be reminded to those expressing an undue interest in editing out what they would rather not see that the credibility of Wikipedia should not be tampered with despite our personal preferences.

Appreciatively, J.P.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.6.252 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fired?

I think he was just **Fired**! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.118.244.226 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently he wasn't fired, but he was put on notice. "The move put Strzok on notice that the bureau intends to fire him, though he has rights to appeal that are likely to delay that action." [2] ^Falling_Gravity 05:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reference 14 is inaccessible to anyone not subscribed to the WSJ

The solitary reference to a Wall Street Journal study is unverifiable lacking a paid subscription or at least additional corroborating evidence. This is dangerous as users will be incapable of verifying the reported information. Include an open reference to the study performed in the article, otherwise this page is putting a price on historical evidence and it is likely to face dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Tho (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. There is no requirement that reliable sources be easily available to anyone for free - see WP:RSC. It would be helpful if a version of the source was available for free, but if not, there are no grounds for removing the source and doing so on that basis would be considered disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility is to search for a more widely available reliable source that verifies the assertion in question, and add that as a reference. Otherwise, the WSJ reference should be kept, unless there is evidence that the reference does not support the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please by all means do not remove the current source. That doesn't help at all. This is a critical and highly challenged point in the article and would very well benefit if it were coupled with more accessible sources. Dennis Tho (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Then try to find accessible sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Escorted off the FBI premise

Not sure if this information belongs in the article. --2001:8003:4023:D900:BC24:BBC4:C2CB:C84C (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already in there. ^Falling_Gravity 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is not a RS, so it must be sourced better or removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I see that it's sourced to CNN, so no problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking about the general substance of the article, not source itself. ^Falling_Gravity 07:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes 1 and 4

Footnote 1 is a reference to a home sale in the Washington Post. Presumably, that Peter Strzok is the same as this Peter Strzok, but I don't think that that cite is particularly good support for that this Peter Strzok is Peter Paul Strzok II. Footnote 4 is terrible support for what Peter Strzok's birthdate is. It seems to refer to his age at the time, but not at all to his birthday. Rnagel (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Strzok's upcoming hearing, explained

Good article for use here:

• Controversial FBI agent Peter Strzok’s upcoming hearing, explained

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Article rename suggestion

Since this article isn't really biographical (it doesn't cover very much about Strzok's life aside from the text messaging scandal), I suggest this article be renamed to something similar to "Strzok-Page Text Messaging Scandal" with a redirect for "Peter Strzok". Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not really an article about the person Peter Strzok. It's really an article about the FBI shenanigans and the texting scandal, etc. A rename is needed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12, 2018, Congress hearing

This section is very biased. It offers only Strzok's "side of the story" and not the "other side". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This section currently reads as follows:

At a July 12, 2018, public congressional hearing, Strzok denied that the personal beliefs expressed in the text messages impacted his work for the FBI. Strzok explained that a "We'll stop Trump" text message was written late at night and off-the-cuff shortly after Trump denigrated the immigrant family of a fallen American war hero, and that the message reflected Strzok's belief that Americans would not vote for a candidate who engaged in such "horrible, disgusting behavior". Strzok said the message "was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate." Strzok added that he knew of information during the 2016 presidential campaign that could have damaged Trump but that he never contemplated leaking it. Strzok also said that he criticized politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in his "blunt" text messages. Strzok's said that the investigation into him and the Republicans' related rhetoric was misguided and played into "our enemies' campaign to tear America apart."

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding the "other side", as long the other side is covered by reliable sources. Articles don't write themselves.- MrX 🖋 23:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: And, what's your point exactly? Do you know what the point of a Talk Page is? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Biographical Information on Peter Strzok

Peter Paul Strzok II, also known as Peter Paul Strzok, Jr., was born on March 15, 1970. (Source: Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.) His father, Peter Paul Strzok, was born on March 18, 1936, in Wisconsin. His mother, Virginia Sue (maiden name unknown) Strzok, was born on August 12, 1937. Strzok is of Polish extraction. His paternal grandparents were Michael John Strzok and Josephine (Badzinski) Strzok. His paternal great-grandparents were John Strzok and Mary (Polnaszek) Strzok on his paternal grandfather's side and Walter M. Badzinski and Myrtle (Kubera) Badzinski on his paternal grandmother's side. (Sources: Ancestry.com and Find A Grave.)

Strzok's father, Peter P. Strzok, graduated from Marquette University in 1958 and served twenty-one years in the U.S. Army before retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 1978. Peter P. Sztrok worked in the private sector immediately after retiring, then for Catholic Relief Services, a charitable organization for which he served in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) beginning in 1980. As a child, Peter Strzok II spent time in Africa with his family. (Sources: "Poor Sister: Tiny Nation a 'Basket Case' Catholic Worker Assesses" by Joel Rutchick, St. Cloud Times, St. Cloud, MN, January 6, 1983, page 19; "Catholic Relief Battles Upper Volta Famine," Minneapolis Star, Minneapolis, MN, August 21, 1981, page 8.)

Between retiring from the army and working for Catholic Relief Services, Peter P. Strzok worked in the private sector. He arrived in Iran in July 1978 as a support unit manager for Bell Helicopter Textron. His wife and son also lived in Iran, where Virginia Sue Strzok taught at the Tehran American School and where Peter Strzok II was presumably a pupil. [I do not have a direct source on which to base this inference.] In December 1978, it was announced that the Tehran American School would close and would not reopen until the fall of 1979. Virginia Strzok and Peter Strzok II, then eight years old, returned to the United States the following month, on January 6, 1979. Peter P. Strzok left Iran on February 6, 1979, just five days after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had returned to that country from his place of exile in France. (Source: "Gilman Native Says Individual Americans Treated Well in Iran" by Arnie Hoffman, Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, WI, February 21, 1979, page 7.) After the Gulf War, Strzok served as a head of operations for the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in northern Iraq. (Source: "Why Can't World Do for Bosnians What It's Doing for Kurds?" by Robert J. White, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, February 3, 1994, page 17.)

In the first week of January 1983, Peter P. Strzok enrolled his then twelve-year-old son Peter Strzok II at St. John's Preparatory School, a Catholic preparatory school located in Collegeville, Minnesota. (Source: "Poor Sister: Tiny Nation a 'Basket Case' Catholic Worker Assesses" by Joel Rutchick, St. Cloud Times, St. Cloud, MN, January 6, 1983, page 19.) Peter Strzok II, then of Minneapolis, Minnesota, graduated from St. John's in 1987 with plans to attend Georgetown University. In his time at St. John's, Strzok's activities included the golf club, speech, the National Honor Society, the student newspaper, and the school yearbook. (Source: "St. John's Prep" [photographic feature of graduates], Daily Times, St. Cloud, MN, May 15, 1987, page 38.)

American Reader (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

[55] Wray said that Peter Strzok was not punished

He was the #2 counter-intelligence agent, when he left the FBI, for the Mueller Investigation. He returned as an HR employee, after being released from the Mueller Investigation. It seems he was demoted, like Bruce Ohr. Isn't a demotion considered punishment? Rossbarranco (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)