Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who launched the bureau's Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign, was fired in 2018.

This termination took place several months after his removal from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over Strzok's damning text messages to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which denigrated the very people the bureau was investigating, including President Donald Trump.

'The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment in the defendants' favor.'

When Page texted Strzok ahead of the 2016 election for assurance that Trump was "not ever going to become president," the FBI agent replied, "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

The bureau noted at the time of his termination that Strzok, whom President Donald Trump has labeled a "fraud" and a "sick loser," "was subject to the standard FBI review and disciplinary process after conduct highlighted in the IG report was referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility."

While his firing appeared to be justly deserved, Strzok nevertheless filed a lawsuit in August 2019, challenging his dismissal and claiming that the Department of Justice and FBI violated his rights to free speech and privacy — even though his damning messages were exchanged on his FBI-issued device.

An Obama judge just delivered Strzok some bad news.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a ruling Tuesday that after a review of years-worth of evidence and testimony, "The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment in the defendants' favor and that [Strzok's] motion for summary judgment should be denied."

RELATED: Durham annex proves Russiagate was a coordinated smear

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Jackson noted that it was not up to her to decide "whether it was unnecessarily harsh to end plaintiff's career after a long, unblemished record of outstanding service to the agency, or whether a severe sanction was necessary to address the lack of professionalism and appearance of bias in the messages."

The question before her was instead whether the bureau's firing of Strzok "comported with the Constitution."

When considering Strzok's First Amendment claim, Jackson noted that the Russiagate hoaxer's "interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone at that time was outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people, and in protecting against the disruption of its law enforcement operations under then-Director Wray's leadership."

Jackson noted further that Strzok proved unable to point to evidence that the DOJ and FBI treated him any "more harshly than they would have treated employees in similar circumstances because the viewpoint expressed in the texts was critical of President Trump."

Apparently, there was no point of comparison as the FBI officials deposed said the situation was unprecedented.

Jackson's full opinion was filed under seal "because it contains references to materials, such as deposition transcripts, that were filed under seal in an abundance of caution at the request of at least one of the parties at the time."

While Strzok lost this battle, the DOJ under former Attorney General Merrick Garland entered into a $1.2 million agreement with the Russiagate hoaxer in the final months of the Biden administration to settle his privacy-invasion claims.

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed earlier this month that Garland and former FBI Director Christopher Wray decided to give Strzok the money.

Politico indicated that Strzok's attorney did not respond to its request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!