Two months ago, former FBI official Lisa Page — who resigned from the bureau back in 2018 after anti-Trump text messages between her and former Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok came to light — agreed to an $800,000 settlement with the Justice Department over the lawsuit she brought in 2019.

Likewise, Strzok, who was fired from the bureau after those text messages came to light, also sued the government. And last week, the DOJ settled with him, paying out $1.2 million.

In 2016, the duo was engaged in an extramarital affair, which in itself is a violation of FBI rules, but it was their rabidly anti-Trump messages that got them in hot water. At the time, Strzok was also helping to orchestrate the Russia/Trump collusion hoax.

Furthermore, Strzok was a central figure in both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s homebrew server and the accompanying classified documents scandal for which disgraced former FBI Director James Comey declined to bring charges.

As Mark Alexander observed, “Ahead of the 2016 election, Strzok, who was also the FBI’s lead ‘investigator’ of the Clinton email scandal, described the prospect of Trump defeating Clinton as ‘terrifying.’ Page wrote to Strzok, ‘There is no way [Trump] gets elected.’ Strzok replied, ‘I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office … that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy…’”

It was midway through Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that the Strzok-Page affair, as well as their anti-Trump text messages, were made public.

In their lawsuits, both alleged that the DOJ had violated the Privacy Act when their text messages were released to the press. As Strzok attorney Aitan Goelman asserted, the settlement “vindicates the privacy interests of all government employees.” He added, “We will continue to litigate Pete’s constitutional claims to ensure that, in the future, public servants are protected from adverse employment actions motivated by partisan politics.”

And what of Trump’s — or any politician’s, for that matter — concern of being targeted by politically biased and motivated individuals within the Justice Department who abuse their position to go after those they object to politically? Indeed, Strzok was on the short list of leading individuals within the FBI, along with Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who have undermined Americans’ trust in the nation’s premier law enforcement agency.

While none of these individuals remains in the FBI, they have all been rewarded for their efforts to thwart Trump’s presidency. However, in so doing, they exposed to the country the reality of the DC deep state.

Of course, after having collected a big payday, both Page and Strzok continue to play the victim. As Page stated following her settlement, “While I have been vindicated by this result, my fervent hope remains that our institutions of justice will never again play politics with the lives of their employees.”

Technically, the government is not admitting to any guilt with these settlements, yet Attorney General Merrick Garland effectively admitted to it when defending the settlements in a House hearing. “The Privacy Act doesn’t distinguish between people we like and people we don’t like, information we like and information we don’t like,” he said. “If somebody in the government discloses personal information protected by the Privacy Act, that’s the way the law is.”

To which Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan responded, “So, you can go after a president and you get rewarded for doing so, according to the Justice Department?”

Garland then answered, “It’s not a question of reward. It’s a question of the government paying for violating the law.” But, as noted above, in the settlement the government did not agree that it violated the law.

Ergo, Jordan’s assessment was accurate, and both Page and Strzok got paid. This is the two-tiered justice that infects all of Washington, which conservatives have repeatedly pointed out and criticized. Indeed, a better name for it is simply injustice.