[Pete F.]

It’s pretty clear that Pete Strzok has an extremely strong slander case against Floridaman for the latter’s false claim last night that Lisa Page obtained a restraining order against Strzok.
First of all, Floridaman’s statement was false. You can take Lisa Page’s word for it, but obviously if it were true we would have seen the public record of it long ago.
Second, Floridaman’s statement was defamatory, because it necessarily implied that Strzok had engaged in improper conduct that warranted a restraining order.
Third, assuming that Strzok is a public figure and that New York Times v. Sullivan’s “actual malice” standard applies, that standard is met because Floridaman made clear that he entertained serious doubts as to whether what he was saying was true. “I don’t know if it’s true,” he said.
(The term “actual malice” is a bit misleading—as later cases make clear, the Sullivan test turns on whether the defendant entertained “serious doubts” as to the truth of the defamatory statement, which Floridaman openly acknowledged at the rally.)
Fourth, under Clinton v. Jones, presidential immunity can’t apply because Floridaman’s statement did not come within his presidential duties: (a) this was a campaign rally; and (b) his assault on Strzok and Page’s personal relationship does not involve governmental business.

Now, why on earth would Floridaman want to slander one of the FBI's top Russian spy-catchers?

Putin's Puppet in action again