Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who was dragged into the Russia investigation over accusations of a bias against President Trump, is suing the FBI and the Justice Department for violating her privacy. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Page alleges that the FBI and the Justice Department made "unlawful disclosure[s]" about her to the media "in violation of the Privacy Act."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Man, just think how all those Trump tweets about Page and Strzok will come back to cost us, the taxpayers, millions because we have a President with the temperment of a pubescent ignoramus.

By the time the former "deep state" alumni - all wrongly accused by Trump - have their day in court the Treasury will look like a robbery took place when the final totals are added up.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-10 04:47 PM | Reply

She's just striking pre-imptively. She knows she's about to get spanked by Durham.

#2 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-12-10 05:37 PM | Reply

She's just striking pre-imptively. She knows she's about to get spanked by Durham.

#2 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

It's obvious that you didn't read the IG report. What exactly is she supposed to have done that justified the abuse of her privacy?

Newsflash: Not liking Trump is not a criminal offense....... yet.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-10 05:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Home wrecking ho sues DOJ cause Trump hurt her non-existent feelings. Impeachment at 11:00.

#4 | Posted by Spork at 2019-12-10 05:59 PM | Reply

It's obvious that you didn't read the IG report. What exactly is she supposed to have done that justified the abuse of her privacy?

Newsflash: Not liking Trump is not a criminal offense....... yet.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma

Looks like she's been identified as a source for one.

#5 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-12-10 06:11 PM | Reply

According to the Horowitz report, FBI attorney Lisa Page didn't play a role in the bureau's decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the cases tied to George Papadopoulos, Carer Page, Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort. As for Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent was "directly involved" in all of those decisions but the report notes "he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters."

www.politico.com

Source for what? Stop talking cryptically and make your case using words, not inferences.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-10 06:18 PM | Reply

Whoops, sorry for the bolding excess.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-10 06:19 PM | Reply

#4...."home wrecking ho"

sporkie, this was about Lisa Page, not your momma

#8 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-12-10 06:26 PM | Reply

So, she wasn't banging a married man? where have you been?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-10 06:32 PM | Reply

So, she wasn't banging a married man?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-10 06:32 PM | Reply

That sort of behavior is only acceptable when you're banging Trump.

Ask Donald, he'll tell you.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-10 06:50 PM | Reply

So, she wasn't banging a married man? where have you been?

#9 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Stormy Daniels works for the FBI?

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-10 07:11 PM | Reply

#9 Let's leave FLOTUS out of this.

#12 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-11 01:26 AM | Reply

LOL

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-11 01:34 AM | Reply

"My boss got mad at me for sexting with a married man on a company phone while we were also plotting against him, and now I'm emotionally disturbed," doesn't seem like a very solid basis for a lawsuit. Instapundit.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-11 08:28 AM | Reply

Man, Lisa's attorneys have to be scouring the internet looking for nice things to buy in anticipation of the haul she'll get once in court. The GOP cannot keep her private thoughts out of their mouths that prove nothing as it regards how she worked at her job.

Unless they can produce evidence in her work product confirming the obvious bias that they claim it appears the only going defamatory accusations only strengthen her case.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-11 01:37 PM | Reply

The fact is anything on a government phone or computer is government property. There is no expectation of privacy on a government device, beyond what is covered in the items covered by the personal data security act. Your social security number and your medical records are about the only things covered when you are a government employee. Bet she isn't the one paying the legal fees on this junk suit.

#16 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-12-11 03:30 PM | Reply

There is no expectation of privacy on a government device

The Privacy Act disagrees with you. Look it up. It was written for government employees ignatz.

Go back to sleep.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-11 03:50 PM | Reply

Why isn't she suing Dotard directly? Or can she bring him into the suit at a later time, or file one separate against him, like "trailer trash" Paula Jones? He is trashing her publicly. Sure it will take time and penalty maybe small, relatively to what he already stole from taxpayers, but the eventual trial should be fun if he doesn't agree to settlement figure without NDA. And another "teachable moment" that this nation could use.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

#18 | Posted by CutiePie at 2019-12-11 09:41 PM | Reply

The fact is anything on a government phone or computer is government property. There is no expectation of privacy on a government device, beyond what is covered in the items covered by the personal data security act. Your social security number and your medical records are about the only things covered when you are a government employee. Bet she isn't the one paying the legal fees on this junk suit.

you are right... if it's your own private laptop, then your good... but not on government property.... not ever... knew someone on a med cruise in the navy... was 4 am watch and nothing was going on so he decided to spank mr. wiskers which is ok if no one is watching but his mistake was he went to pornhub.com on one of the workstations... turns out the ships ip team inspects everything that goes out on to the web. he spent the rest of the cruise in the brig and like hunter biden... got a dishonorable discharge.... the sad thing is the ships store sells playboy and hustler skin mags.

not as good as an mp4 file but if you move around the pages just right... it comes close enough at 4 am in the morning in the middle of the ocean.

#19 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-12-11 10:18 PM | Reply

#19

BS. I posted the link to the law above but I guess you're too ignorant to read it.

The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual from a system of records absent the written consent of the individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions.

Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties

A. The "No Disclosure Without Consent" Rule

B. Twelve Exceptions to the "No Disclosure Without Consent" Rule

5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1) ("need to know" within agency)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) (required FOIA disclosure)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) (routine uses)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(4) (Bureau of the Census)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(5) (statistical research)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(6) (National Archives)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7) (law enforcement request)
"to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought."

5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(8) (health or safety of an individual)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9) (Congress)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(10) (General Accounting Office)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(11) (court order)
5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) (Debt Collection Act)

Care to correct yourself?

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-11 10:40 PM | Reply

nope... where does it say you can watch ----- on government property?

#21 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-12-11 10:54 PM | Reply

#21

I guess you didn't read the intro paragraph either.

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who was dragged into the Russia investigation over accusations of a bias against President Trump, is suing the FBI and the Justice Department for violating her privacy. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Page alleges that the FBI and the Justice Department made "unlawful disclosure[s]" about her to the media "in violation of the Privacy Act."

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-11 11:01 PM | Reply

Rear Adm. Richard Williams Jr. gives a speech during a change of command ceremony June 26, 2015, at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, where he formerly served as commander of Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific, before taking command of Carrier Strike Group 15 in San Diego.

The Navy announced Saturday, Jan. 9, 2016, that Williams was relieved of duty based on the initial findings of an ongoing investigation into the alleged misuse of government computer equipment.

His computer violations were discovered during a routine security scan of Boxer computers by Navy Information Operations Command in San Diego, the investigation said.

The Navy also said Williams looked at women in bikinis on his government computer at North Island Naval Air Station, his regular office. The admiral denied watching porn on his office computer.

Williams' fall from grace follows a history of a significant number of Navy commanding officers being removed from their posts for computer indiscretions " as opposed to technical errors such as hitting a pier.

#23 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-12-11 11:07 PM | Reply

Female disgruntled employee.... i have noticed many female employees take getting fired personally. They usually scream or make other feable attempts to get "even".

Take hillary.... she had to write a book about her loss to Trump and even today she still has not admit it was her fault... she blames everyone except herself.

Women make terrible disgruntled employees...

#24 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-12-11 11:18 PM | Reply

She suing because the government illegally publicized her information which has to come with her consent under the law. She has not been charged with any violation that would allow her actions to be disclosed as you intimate, which is why she's suing. Otherwise the suit would have been dismissed. The personal information she's suing over had nothing to do with watching porn on her computer, it was about details of her personal life with no relevance to any statutory violation.

Unless it is directly connected to the above excepted reasons where the government can do so without her permission, said disclosures violate the letter of the Privacy Act.

Are you going to keep posting things that don't touch on the Privacy Act violation itself?

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-11 11:18 PM | Reply

Women make terrible disgruntled employees...
#24 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

You used a ridiculous example in your misogynistic attempt at smearing women considering Hillary was never hired, hence she was never fired nor could she be accuratately described as a disgruntled employee. All you did was describe the actions of a disgruntled female political candidate, which is apples to bathtubs as a comparison.

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-11 11:49 PM | Reply

The fact is anything on a government phone or computer is government property. There is no expectation of privacy on a government device, ...

That means the government can collect the information without the user's consent. However, once collected private information about the user cannot be cannot be disseminated to third parties except as provided by the Privacy Act. There is no provision in the Act permitting dissemination to the media.

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2019-12-12 12:29 AM | Reply

Is this the same Lisa Page that leaked information to Devlin Barret to shape a political outcome?

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-12 02:54 AM | Reply

Is this the same Lisa Page that leaked information to Devlin Barret to shape a political outcome?

#28 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

And if it is, does that somehow permit the government to violate the Privacy Act? Is that how law works now?

#29 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-12 08:19 AM | Reply

There is no provision in the Act permitting dissemination to the media.

ACTUALLY there is.... It's called the Freedom of Information act... and all it talks is the media make a FOI request. Of course, they gotta know what they are looking for.... I think someone in her office really hates her so someone leaked what to look for....

Still think she's a disgruntled employee.... as for Hillary, she's a disgruntled Politician...Trump hatred knows no bounds but thank goodness Democrats are so good at talking themselves out of winning an election but are much better at insulting voters...

#30 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-12-12 09:13 AM | Reply

It's an interesting case.

Pegasus is correct in that a government employee signing on to a government device or system is presented with a notice they have to acknowledge saying they understand they are being monitored. Thus there is no expectation of privacy.

Tony is also partly right. That advisory doesn't say the government can share it.

However, Tony is also partly wrong. Privacy Act only applies to information specifically identified as being covered by the Privacy Act. The PA refers to "records". A record is defined as "item, collection, or grouping of infirmation about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal and employment history and that contains their name [..]". That definition has been the subject of MANY court cases. Several circuit courts have a narrow definition that would likely not include email exchanges.

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-12 09:48 AM | Reply

So if a disgruntled employee reports wrongdoing it is automatically false? Are not disgruntled employees not sometimes (perhaps even often) truthful in their complaints? Do you think "gruntled" employees are going to "rock the boat"? Organizations tend to hide facts that will make them look bad.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-12 09:50 AM | Reply

"My boss got mad at me for sexting with a married man on a company phone while we were also plotting against him, and now I'm emotionally disturbed," doesn't seem like a very solid basis for a lawsuit. Instapundit.

#14 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Show me where they plotted against Trump.

And why weren't the pro-Trump texts between some investigators leaked as well? Why are we only finding out about them now?

I guess we should take the GOP approach and demand the entire investigation be re-done with investigators who aren't pro-Trump. Oh, and this time, no Mueller. He is a Republican. We need a Democrat investigating just like a Republican investigated Clinton.

#33 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-12-12 12:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort