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

[ocean515]

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!

I provided them.

How about her role after Crossfire Hurricane was launched?

Not going to waste any more time with your posts. You just keep repeating the same nonsense.

 

[JasperL]

I'm surprised she wasn't fired and imprisoned. Hopefully they take swift action against the both of them.

If you want to allege she should have been "imprisoned" why don't you tell us for what crime?

You can't say, of course, you're just sure despite two major investigations one exists....

 

[nota bene]

Why? What business is it of yours?

Do you not understand "public"? And it helps me to understand how and where to spend my time and money--whether to buy the book, attend the concert, or see the film.

 

[Cardinal]

Do you not understand "public"? And it helps me to understand how and where to spend my time and money--whether to buy the book, attend the concert, or see the film.

You have put so little time into understanding your own position in this thread that you're devolving into total incoherence. Do you want to try that again?

 

[nota bene]

Why? What business is it of yours?

Public. The word is "public."

 

[nota bene]

You have put so little time into understanding your own position in this thread that you're devolving into total incoherence. Do you want to try that again?

Then never mind, Cardinal.

 

[Michael Johnson]

If you want to allege she should have been "imprisoned" why don't you tell us for what crime?

Why did she resign?

You can't say, of course, you're just sure despite two major investigations one exists....

This case isn't over yet. She compromised national security and she knew it. That's why she fled the FBI and that's why she has a bogus lawsuit.

And you have yet to back up your previous claims I called you out on.

Did you ask your boss if communications on your work issued phone and/or laptop are private?

 

[Cardinal]

Public. The word is "public."

Yes....and...?

 

[JasperL]

I provided them.

How about her role after Crossfire Hurricane was launched?

What about her role? What did she DO?

Not going to waste any more time with your posts. You just keep repeating the same nonsense.

I'm quoting from the report. You're unable to and demonstrate wrongdoing. I'd quit too if I failed that badly.

 

[lemmiwinx]

So do a lot of public servants.



And here you go. You're going from the text you quoted to this. Yet the IG's investigation found that this conspiracy theory has absolutely ZERO basis. There's NOTHING you can point to to show that there's any kind of wrongdoing by Lisa Page. She had nothing to do with FISA or "spying on the Trump campaign".

Pardon me but the IG's report verifies that the FISA warrants were based on the lies of the fake Steele dossier which the FBI knew was fake at the time. Surely you've seen this even on your unbiased news sources.

 

[justabubba]

That’s not what the law says. Read the lawsuit. What part of the law as cited does not apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not private information that was disclosed tho she alleges it
What is found on the government phone is the government’s to release should it see fit

 

[ocean515]

What about her role? What did she DO?



I'm quoting from the report. You're unable to and demonstrate wrongdoing. I'd quit too if I failed that badly.

From the report:

On October 12, 2016, Evans's concerns about Steele were briefed to Corney and McCabe in a meeting attended by at least Priestap, Strzok, Lisa Page, and the OGC Unit Chief. According to notes of the meeting, the group discussed that Evans was concerned Steele may have been hired by someone associated with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that the read copy of the FISA application would not be filed with the court that day so that Evans could further assess the potential bias.​

Yet she, and all the others, continued on with the FISA applications, omitting any reference to the bias and connection.

Do you know what Lisa Page's job was?

 

[JasperL]

Why did she resign?

There's a huge difference between quitting and going to jail. Surely you know this.

You said she should be 'imprisoned.' For what crime?

 

[JasperL]

From the report:

On October 12, 2016, Evans's concerns about Steele were briefed to Corney and McCabe in a meeting attended by at least Priestap, Strzok, Lisa Page, and the OGC Unit Chief. According to notes of the meeting, the group discussed that Evans was concerned Steele may have been hired by someone associated with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that the read copy of the FISA application would not be filed with the court that day so that Evans could further assess the potential bias.​

Yet she, and all the others, continued on with the FISA applications, omitting any reference to the bias and connection.

Do you know what Lisa Page's job was?

No, they did NOT omit any reference - we've all read the "reference" from the publicly released portion of that FISA application, and the Horowitz report describes it, quotes from it as I recall.

But even if what you said was true - it's not - that's not evidence of wrongdoing by Lisa Page. She had no authority to approve, or not approve, any FISA application, and the report confirms this, several times, as I quoted and you ignored.

Again, what action did she take that was wrong?

And, yes, I know what she did - she's a lawyer, and right hand to McCabe. Do YOU know what lawyers do? Doesn't appear so.

 

[ocean515]

No, they did NOT omit any reference - we've all read the "reference" from the publicly released portion of that FISA application, and the Horowitz report describes it, quotes from it as I recall.

But even if what you said was true - it's not - that's not evidence of wrongdoing by Lisa Page. She had no authority to approve, or not approve, any FISA application, and the report confirms this, several times, as I quoted and you ignored.

They did not omit the reference? Is that your claim? The FISA applications were complete?

From Horowitz opening statement:

“We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny,”

"We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed,"

 

[Michael Johnson]

There's a huge difference between quitting and going to jail. Surely you know this.

You're preponderance for cherry picking is amusing.

You said she should be 'imprisoned.' For what crime?

I've already answered this question. You have yet to answer my previous repeated questions that are still waiting for concrete evidence that supposedly backs up your prior claims.

 

[JasperL]

It’s not private information that was disclosed tho she alleges it
What is found on the government phone is the government’s to release should it see fit

Again, that's not what the law says. Here's the law. Show us where it allows DOJ to invite reporters into the building to view private texts of one of its employees.

5 U.S. Code SS 552a - Records maintained on individuals | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(b)Conditions of Disclosure.—No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
(1)to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;
.....

Note the bolded. What follows are several exceptions. Point is information like those texts is NOT for release as any government agency "shall see fit." The law outlines when and in what circumstances information can be released.

 

[JasperL]

I've already answered this question. You have yet to answer my previous repeated questions that are still waiting for concrete evidence that supposedly backs up your prior claims.

No, you haven't identified any crime. What's the charge that should land her in jail, specifically?

 

[JasperL]

They did not omit the reference? Is that your claim? The FISA applications were complete?

I didn't say the FISA applications were "complete" because that's a subjective determination, but that they included a reference to "the bias", which isn't. From the report:

Due to Evans's persistent inquiries, the FISA
application also included a footnote, developed by QI
based on information provided by the Crossfire
Hurricane team, to address Evans's concern about the
potential political bias of Steele's research. The
footnote stated that Steele was hired by an identified
U.S. person (Glenn Simpson) to conduct research
regarding "Candidat e # l's" (Donald Trump) ties to
Russia and that the FBI "speculates" that this U.S.
person was likely looking for information that could be
used to discredit the Trump campaign.

And you right wingers treat it as an article of faith that at that time the FBI knew, i.e. could state as a fact to a court, who the client was (DNC/Clinton Campaign) when the only way they could know that is if the law firm divulged it, which they didn't do, could NOT do, until threatened with all kinds of legal actions many months later and were released from their confidentiality obligations. We went through all this when the FISA application was released.

From Horowitz opening statement:

“We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny,”

"We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed,"

There are a lot of cases where Horowitz called out people by name for making errors, or other wrongdoing. I'm just waiting on ONE example naming Lisa Page. As you know, she was named roughly 100 times in that report. Surely somewhere in those 100 references you can find ONE example of specific wrongdoing. Right? Trump has smeared her by name for YEARS now. Must have been really bad! So let's see it!

 

[Michael Johnson]

No, you haven't identified any crime. What's the charge that should land her in jail, specifically?

Thank you sir for admitting you cannot back up your claims. I appreciate it.

 

[justabubba]

Again, that's not what the law says. Here's the law. Show us where it allows DOJ to invite reporters into the building to view private texts of one of its employees.

5 U.S. Code SS 552a - Records maintained on individuals | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



Note the bolded. What follows are several exceptions. Point is information like those texts is NOT for release as any government agency "shall see fit." The law outlines when and in what circumstances information can be released.

unfortunately, you are wrong. this is from your cite:

(4) the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;

those texts were not agency "records" of the individual
those were work product of a government issued, government-owned phone
i will be surprised if she was not required to sign a document at the time of receipt of the government phone, acknowledging that all information communicated by that phone was a government rather than a personal document. i've been away from it for 16 years, but such was required when i was a federal employee

 

[Michael Johnson]

unfortunately, you are wrong. this is from your cite:

those texts were not agency "records" of the individual
those were work product of a government issued, government-owned phone
i will be surprised if she was not required to sign a document at the time of receipt of the government phone, acknowledging that all information communicated by that phone was a government rather than a personal document. i've been away from it for 16 years, but such was required when i was a federal employee

Exactly. I've worked in the public sector. Whether you're working for city, county, state, or federal you cannot use work issued electronics for personal use and all communications are not private and can be accessed by the public. There is always an acknowledgment you must sign, which she did especially if she had a high security clearance.

The link below is a proof of that.

Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct

 

[JasperL]

unfortunately, you are wrong. this is from your cite:

those texts were not agency "records" of the individual
those were work product of a government issued, government-owned phone
i will be surprised if she was not required to sign a document at the time of receipt of the government phone, acknowledging that all information communicated by that phone was a government rather than a personal document. i've been away from it for 16 years, but such was required when i was a federal employee

First of all, the lawyers disagree with you that the statute I cited doesn't apply. I'll go with the lawyers on this one, who are suing on behalf of a federal employee who was a senior lawyer in the DoJ.

And whether or not those texts are 'work product', or can be viewed by the employer, or is the property of the government doesn't give them permission to release that information. Everyone uses their phones for personal business, medical, children, financial, lots of that could be very sensitive. The government can't just give that out to the press for no reason, or to the public for no reason, hence the law that says when and to whom and under what circumstances they can make those texts public.

 

[JasperL]

No, it's not false. Page's suit is an allegation - not a fact. I don't expect you to know the difference. Should I use capital letters to demonstrate the difference between an allegation and established fact?

BTW, Rosenstein admitted that the DOJ leaked the texts. See the lawsuit, page 15. When the Deputy AG admits to it under oath before Congress, is it still just an allegation?

Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Sues Justice Department and FBI - Lawfare

57.The attempt to prevent reporters from divulging the true source of the messages
was unsuccessful, and DOJ officials were forced to admit that DOJ had deliberately released the
text messages to the media and attempted to conceal that release. In his testimony the morning of
December 13 before the House Judiciary Committee, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
confirmed a congressman’s summary that “the Department of Justice . . . last evening, invited a
group of reporters to its offices to view the private text messages that were sent during the election
by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.”

 

[JasperL]

Exactly. I've worked in the public sector. Whether you're working for city, county, state, or federal you cannot use work issued electronics for personal use and all communications are not private and can be accessed by the public. There is always an acknowledgment you must sign, which she did especially if she had a high security clearance.

The link below is a proof of that.

Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct

Let's quote from it:

Generally, you should be mindful of your responsibilities to make an honest effort to use government property and official time, including the time of a subordinate, for official business only, and to protect and conserve government property. However, as a Justice Department employee, you are generally authorized to make minimal personal use of most office equipment and library facilities where the cost to the government is negligible and where it does not interfere with official business, where permitted by security rules, and on your own time. This limited personal use is a privilege, not a right, and employee use must conform to all restrictions. Employees may not use government property including computer systems and individual electronic devices for commercial purposes; etc... list of restricted activity

So it explicitly authorizes the limited use of government equipment including electronic devices for personal purposes.

And it's FALSE that all communications can be "accessed by the public." You can't cite anything that tells me I can request all the texts of Mulvaney or Bolton or Nunes or any other federal employee.