• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page suing Justice Department, FBI for disclosing text messages

Michael Johnson said:
Try again LOL. Both those losers already made the connection.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you can't connect those concepts. You're just jamming "affair" and "harming national security" into the same post and just hoping the rest of us agree there's some connection between the two. That's how all right wing conspiracy theories work, through insinuation and suggestion: but never anything concrete.
 
JasperL said:
That's not an allegation of wrongdoing by Lisa Page. What did she DO with regard to the FISA application?



Like I said, I've done it. If you want to highlight some allegation of wrongdoing, I'm waiting.....:roll:
Click to expand...

Before I waste any more time, how many times is Lisa Page mentioned in the IG's report?
 
Michael Johnson said:
And yet those texts were reviewed and released due to her being investigated for her unprofessional actions.

And once again where is your proof that the OP mocked this disgraced loser?
Click to expand...

If you don't think the his comments are 'mocking', that's fine, so you're mocking her, Trump is including lying about her, yesterday for example, and many others.

And where is your proof that over 100 Congress members engaged in affairs on the government's dime? Stop pulling phantoms out of thin air.
Click to expand...

If you take the 535 members of congress and their staff, my "GUESS" is at least 100 are cheating on their spouses. That's roughly the national average for people over 50 and my "GUESS" is slimeballs in Congress are less ethical and have more affairs than the general public. Maybe I'm wrong but the point is clear - cheating on your spouse isn't a sufficient reason to release your personal texts. It's not me saying it - that's what the law says.

You clearly didn't read, sir. The lawsuit is not fact. Your bias for this loser is showing. LOL
Click to expand...

What part of the law did she get wrong? It's a simple question. You're making assertions of law that contradict the law as cited in the lawsuit. Where did she go wrong, specifically? If you're a lawyer or are versed in the law, you can answer this easily enough. So do it if you're so certain that I can request all the texts of e.g. Mulvaney, including his personal ones, on his various government devices. That's YOUR claim, so prove it.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Does it bother you when people you've never met have an affair?
Click to expand...

The only way I would know if the affair becomes public knowledge. And yes.
 
nota bene said:
Misuse of government property and theft of time shows a lack of professionalism and also of honor.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm sure it's allowed to use work phones for personal use, and theft of time for professionals in any environment working 60-80 hour weeks many weeks is just absurd.
 
Cardinal said:
So in other words, you can't connect those concepts.
Click to expand...

LOL you have a hard time reading, for one. The connection was already made by two former employees sleeping together on the government's dime while using work issued phones to gossip about their boss, compromising national security.

Just admit you advocate for having sex on the job, married or not.

You're just jamming "affair" and "harming national security" into the same post and just hoping the rest of us agree there's some connection between the two. That's how all right wing conspiracy theories work, through insinuation and suggestion: but never anything concrete.
Click to expand...

LOL I don't expect nor care for LeftLies to agree. And while I understand facts are like kryptonite to you (as well as having a weird, unprofessional obsession with fraternizing at work and abusing employer resources), facts don't care about feelings.
 
JasperL said:
View attachment 67269802
Click to expand...

My search identified 98.

Horowitz stated nobody is vindicated who touched FISA.

The IG's report describes and provides texts detailing numerous instances when Lisa Page was sitting in on meetings with McCabe and others, where the revelations that the Steele Dossier was bogus, and they still moved forward with additional applications.

What more do you need?
 
nota bene said:
From CBS News:

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with another FBI employee, is suing the Justice Department and FBI over the disclosure of those text messages to the media. Her attorneys argue in the suit that the revelation of her text messages violates the Privacy Act, which bars "disclosing a covered record 'about' an individual unless an exception applies or the individual who is the subject of the record consents in writing to the disclosure.

The Justice Department declined on Tuesday to comment on the lawsuit.
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page suing Justice Department, FBI for disclosing text messages - CBS News

From the court document:

DOJ's unlawful disclosure of its records of Ms. Page's text messages has caused Ms. Page significant harm and financial loss in the form of : (a) permanent loss of earning capacity due to reputational damage; () attorneys' fees relating to investigations and congressional testimony as well as efforts to prevent the release of personal text messages; (c) the cost of childcare during and transportation to multiple investivative interviews and appearances before Congress; (d) the cost of paying a data-privacy service to protect her personal information; and (e) the cost of therapy to cope with unwanted national media exposure and harassment caused by the December 12 disclosure.
Page 20 of Lisa Page v Doj Doc 1 Complaint 12-10-19 (1) | Hillary Clinton Email Controversy | United States Government

Definition of chutzpah: Killing both your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.
Click to expand...

Poor baby. Guess she doesn't care about the significant harm that she and Sterzok did and things being leaked to the media hurting Trump. I busted out laughing the minute I heard this story. More hypocrisy from the left. Maybe she's doing this hoping it will somehow help her not to be arrested.
 
JasperL said:
Seriously? I'm sure it's allowed to use work phones for personal use, and theft of time for professionals in any environment working 60-80 hour weeks many weeks is just absurd.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the federal government.
 
JasperL said:
Seriously? I'm sure it's allowed to use work phones for personal use, and theft of time for professionals in any environment working 60-80 hour weeks many weeks is just absurd.
Click to expand...

When you're committing a crime, it doesn't matter how many hours a week you are working.

If nobody did anything wrong, why is the IG referring so many people involved with Crossfire Hurricane to the FBI and the Justice Department, as a result of his investigation?
 
JasperL said:
Seriously? I'm sure it's allowed to use work phones for personal use...
Click to expand...

To a certain extent. But the bottom line is that you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re using a government device to send text messages on a taxpayer funded data plan.
 
Moderate Right said:
Poor baby. Guess she doesn't care about the significant harm that she and Sterzok did and things being leaked to the media hurting Trump. I busted out laughing the minute I heard this story. More hypocrisy from the left. Maybe she's doing this hoping it will somehow help her not to be arrested.
Click to expand...

You just don't understand. Lisa Page is a victim. She is not responsible for her own actions.
 
nota bene said:
The texts were not personal. Begin with this fact.

And Lisa Page acted in good faith? You think cheating on your spouse on government time and with government property is any sort of faith or honor at all?

:lamo
Click to expand...

So the new standard is that political appointees are free to search for and publish any embarrassing texts they find on government phones? Even if only one of the participants was using a government phone?

That's what you want to happen? Really? Because I think that means the Democrats are free to go through and search Barr's government phone and publish any personal texts they find.
 
Michael Johnson said:
LOL you have a hard time reading, for one. The connection was already made by two former employees sleeping together on the government's dime while using work issued phones to gossip about their boss, compromising national security.

Just admit you advocate for having sex on the job, married or not.



LOL I don't expect nor care for LeftLies to agree. And while I understand facts are like kryptonite to you (as well as having a weird, unprofessional obsession with fraternizing at work and abusing employer resources), facts don't care about feelings.
Click to expand...

1. Had an affair.
2. On government's dime.
3. Using work issued phones while doing so.
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
9. Compromised national security.
 
JasperL said:
If you don't think the his comments are 'mocking',
Click to expand...

Oh no you don't. You asserted that the OP was mocking this loser. I have since then asked you multiple times to prove so and instead of admitting you were wrong......

that's fine, so you're mocking her, Trump is including lying about her, yesterday for example, and many others.
Click to expand...

You continue to be intellectually dishonest by stating baseless claims that you knowingly cannot prove. I have called you out on this multiple times now.

And if someone is mocking her, it holds no relevance to the fact she fraternized at work with work issued materials while compromising national security and hurting families in the process.


If you take the 535 members of congress and their staff, my "GUESS" is at least 100 are cheating on their spouses. Maybe I'm wrong
Click to expand...

And yet you cannot provide facts to such a ridiculous claim. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?


but the point is clear - cheating on your spouse isn't a sufficient reason to release your personal texts. It's not me saying it - that's what the law says.
Click to expand...

LOL then you have poor interpretation skills. Texts on work issued phones are not private, no matter how loudly you spout about it. That's the law. If you work and have a work issued phone or computer, ask your supervisor if your communications on those devices are subject to review, then come back to me.

What part of the law did she get wrong? It's a simple question. You're making assertions of law that contradict the law as cited in the lawsuit. Where did she go wrong, specifically? If you're a lawyer or are versed in the law, you can answer this easily enough. So do it if you're so certain that I can request all the texts of e.g. Mulvaney, including his personal ones, on his various government devices. That's YOUR claim, so prove it.
Click to expand...

The facts are she engaged in an affair on work related time, with a superior, with both losers using taxpayer funded work related electronics. Both had at least high security clearances and with those clearances both knew the professional standards they obviously disobeyed were even higher.

You made disingenuous claims that she did not break any FBI rules, policies or procedures so it is up to you once again to prove so.
 
Mithros said:
So the new standard is that political appointees are free to search for and publish any embarrassing texts they find on government phones? Even if only one of the participants was using a government phone?

That's what you want to happen? Really? Because I think that means the Democrats are free to go through and search Barr's government phone and publish any personal texts they find.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't everyone be able to play by the new rules the New Democratic Party, and their intelligence agency partners have established?
 
Mithros said:
So the new standard is that political appointees are free to search for and publish any embarrassing texts they find on government phones? Even if only one of the participants was using a government phone?

That's what you want to happen? Really? Because I think that means the Democrats are free to go through and search Barr's government phone and publish any personal texts they find.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow. Just wow.
 
Moderate Right said:
Poor baby. Guess she doesn't care about the significant harm that she and Sterzok did and things being leaked to the media hurting Trump. I busted out laughing the minute I heard this story. More hypocrisy from the left. Maybe she's doing this hoping it will somehow help her not to be arrested.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised she wasn't fired and imprisoned. Hopefully they take swift action against the both of them.
 
ocean515 said:
My search identified 98.

Horowitz stated nobody is vindicated who touched FISA.

The IG's report describes and provides texts detailing numerous instances when Lisa Page was sitting in on meetings with McCabe and others, where the revelations that the Steele Dossier was bogus, and they still moved forward with additional applications.

What more do you need?
Click to expand...

Any allegation of wrongdoing. I'm waiting. Sitting in on a meeting isn't evidence of wrongdoing, sorry. And who is "they" who moved forward? Lisa Page didn't - she didn't have the authority to move forward, approve, not approve, anything.

Here's some quotes to start us off:

"In this review, we found that, while Lisa
Page attended some of the discussions regarding the
opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in
the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four
individual cases."

"We are not aware of information indicating that
any of the discussions involving Ohr, Swartz,
Weissmann, Ahmad, Strzok, and Lisa Page resulted in
any actions taken or not taken in the MLARS
investigation, and ultimately the investigation remained
with MLARS until it was transferred to the Office of the
Special Counsel in May 2017."

"With respect to Lisa Page, witnesses told us that she did not work with the
team on a regular basis or make any decisions that impacted the investigation.
Priestap told us that Lisa Page was "not in charge of anything" and that he never
witnessed her attempt to steer the investigation or dictate investigative actions.
Baker said that Lisa Page attended high-level meetings and knew the facts of the
case, but was not in a "decision making position" and had no "decision making
authority."

Your turn to show us any allegations of wrongdoing. GO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom