Connect with us

Published

on

In an action she says was sparked by President Trump supposedly acting out a “demeaning fake orgasm” when referencing her at a rally in October, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, whose anti-Trump text messages with her paramour former FBI agent Peter Strzok made national headlines, has filed a lawsuit against the bureau and the Justice Department for what she clams is “unlawful disclosure of information about her to the media, in violation of the Privacy Act.”

“Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Page told The Daily Beast earlier this month in explanation for why she was planning to file a lawsuit against her former employer. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse. It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”

Page’s “fake orgasm” claim is a reference to Trump’s dramatic interpretation at a rally of some of the texts between Page and Strzok, with whom Page was having an adulterous affair in 2016. Many commentators argue that while Trump’s mocking reference to the Page and Strzok texts was clearly intended to be “demeaning,” it contains no “fake orgasm.” Here’s a video of the moment that made the rounds online:

On Tuesday, Page filed her lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI “to hold them accountable for their unlawful disclosure of information about her to the media, in violation of the Privacy Act.”

“The Privacy Act was enacted to protect individual privacy interests,” the complaint reads. “Agency records can, and often do, contain highly sensitive personal information, including documentation of criminal history, medical records, financial transactions, personnel actions, private conversations, personal contacts, and other sensitive material. As relevant here, the statute bars the DOJ, the FBI, and other federal agencies from 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. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The statute contains no general exception permitting an agency to disclose covered records to the media.”

It was that law, Page alleges, that the Justice Department and the bureau violated by releasing hundreds of her text exchanges with her former paramour.

“On December 12, 2017, Defendants violated the Privacy Act by unlawfully disclosing agency records pertaining to Plaintiff—namely, a 90-page document reflecting 375 text messages between Plaintiff and another FBI employee—to a group of reporters,” the lawsuit reads. “At the time, the messages were part of a larger set of materials under review by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (“DOJ OIG” or “OIG”) for evidence of potential bias in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server for government communications (known internally as the “Midyear Exam” or “Midyear” investigation). Although the OIG review was not yet complete, the officials who authorized the disclosure and their allies sought to use, and ultimately did use, the messages to promote the false narrative that Plaintiff and others at the FBI were biased against President Trump, had conspired to undermine him, and otherwise had engaged in allegedly criminal acts, including treason.”

On the basis of suspecting anti-Trump bias, the department and/or the bureau “disclosed the messages to reporters for multiple improper reasons, including to elevate DOJ’s standing with the President following the President’s repeated public attacks of the Department and its head, Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III.”

“They did so by summoning DOJ beat reporters to the Department to review the messages at night, prohibiting the reporters from copying or removing the set of messages from the building, and instructing them not to reveal DOJ as the source,” Page alleges. “This clandestine approach is inconsistent with the disclosure of agency records for transparency purposes or to advance the public interest.”

Though the Inspector General’s report ultimately “found no evidence of bias affecting any investigative decisions in the FBI’s Midyear investigation,” the complaint reads, it was too late for Page’s reputation.

“By then, Defendants’ unlawful conduct had turned Plaintiff into a subject of frequent attacks by the President of the United States, as well as his allies and supporters,” her lawyers contend. “In the two years since the December 12 disclosure, the President has targeted Ms. Page by name in more than 40 tweets and dozens of interviews, press conferences, and statements from the White House, fueling unwanted media attention that has radically altered her day-to-day life.”

The suit explains that Page is bringing the complaint “to vindicate her rights under the Privacy Act and to recover damages of not less than $1,000, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Below is the full text of the summary of the complaint (read the full complaint here):

  1. Plaintiff is a former FBI attorney. She brings this action against the DOJ and FBI to hold them accountable for their unlawful disclosure of information about her to the media, in violation of the Privacy Act.
  2. The Privacy Act was enacted to protect individual privacy interests. Agency records can, and often do, contain highly sensitive personal information, including documentation of criminal history, medical records, financial transactions, personnel actions, private conversations, personal contacts, and other sensitive material. As relevant here, the statute bars the DOJ, the FBI, and other federal agencies from 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. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The statute contains no general exception permitting an agency to disclose covered records to the media.
  3. On December 12, 2017, Defendants violated the Privacy Act by unlawfully disclosing agency records pertaining to Plaintiff—namely, a 90-page document reflecting 375 text messages between Plaintiff and another FBI employee—to a group of reporters. At the time, the messages were part of a larger set of materials under review by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (“DOJ OIG” or “OIG”) for evidence of potential bias in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server for government communications (known internally as the “Midyear Exam” or “Midyear” investigation). Although the OIG review was not yet complete, the officials who authorized the disclosure and their allies sought to use, and ultimately did use, the messages to promote the false narrative that Plaintiff and others at the FBI were biased against President Trump, had conspired to undermine him, and otherwise had engaged in allegedly criminal acts, including treason.
  4. On information and belief, DOJ and/or FBI officials disclosed the messages to reporters for multiple improper reasons, including to elevate DOJ’s standing with the President following the President’s repeated public attacks of the Department and its head, Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III. They did so by summoning DOJ beat reporters to the Department to review the messages at night, prohibiting the reporters from copying or removing the set of messages from the building, and instructing them not to reveal DOJ as the source. This clandestine approach is inconsistent with the disclosure of agency records for transparency purposes or to advance the public interest.
  5. Ultimately, OIG found no evidence of bias affecting any investigative decisions in the FBI’s Midyear investigation, but the Inspector General’s report, issued six months after the December 12 disclosure, came too late. By then, Defendants’ unlawful conduct had turned Plaintiff into a subject of frequent attacks by the President of the United States, as well as his allies and supporters. In the two years since the December 12 disclosure, the President has targeted Ms. Page by name in more than 40 tweets and dozens of interviews, press conferences, and statements from the White House, fueling unwanted media attention that has radically altered her day-to-day life.
  6. OIG conducted a separate review of the FBI’s investigation of possible coordination between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which concluded in December of 2019. Once again, OIG found no evidence of bias affecting any of the investigative decisions it reviewed, including matters in which Ms. Page was involved. Thus, neither of the two relevant OIG inquiries found any evidence of bias that affected investigative decisions as a result of Ms. Page’s participation in the investigation.
  7. Plaintiff brings this action to vindicate her rights under the Privacy Act and to recover damages of not less than $1,000, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Advertisement
5 Comments
5 Comments
Linda December 12, 2019
| | |
Lisa Page want to sue Justice Department cause she doesn’t like it when President Trump make fun of her But I’m one of those stinky deplorable‘s that she made fun of she can go to hell
Sesa December 12, 2019
| | |
Seriously? Fake orgasm? And you’re not embarrassed? I’m embarrassed for you. Good luck with that
Mickey December 12, 2019
| | |
Wow, the audacity never stops with these people. Does she understand that she committed a crime and so far had gotten away with it? Keep putting yourself in the spotlight, fool!
Evangeline King December 12, 2019
| | |
Oh, you poor thing! You're suing because you claim your privacy was invaded but it was just fine with you to spy on Trump. Typical Dem. The criminals always claiming to be the victim. I hope you're included in the coming Barr/Durham indictments.
Michael December 12, 2019
| | |
Yeah, you're a real victim. How about that little "insurance policy" you and your piece of shit lover were discussing in case Trump won, huh? Fuck you, cunt!
CF

News

Nikki Haley Breaks with Trump: ‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him, and We Shouldn’t Have Listened to Him’

Published

on

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, believes that former President Donald Trump “let us down.”

Haley’s remarks come as the former president’s legal team prepares to present its defense of Trump during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.

In a Politico interview published Friday, Haley, former South Carolina governor, said that “we shouldn’t have followed” Trump.

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said in an extensive profile. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

She also told the outlet that she has not spoken to Trump since the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, and takes issue with his remarks condemning former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to reject the Electoral College vote.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” she expressed. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”

The former ambassador, who many people are speculating may run for the White House in 2024, also added that Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“There’s nothing that you’re ever going to do that’s going to make him feel like he legitimately lost the election,” she explained. “He’s got a big bully pulpit. He should be responsible with it.”

Haley also warned that many people still love the former president and will not stop supporting him just because he is out of office.

“I know how much people love Donald Trump,” she admitted. “I know it. I feel it. Whether it’s an RNC room or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not going to just fall to the wayside. Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should.”

Haley added that people, instead, should “take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party.”

“[I]t’s bigger than the party,” she insisted. “I hope our country can come together and figure out how we pull this back.”

Referring to Haley’s possible 2024 ambitions, Politico’s Tim Alberta wrote, “Since last fall, I’ve spent nearly six hours talking with Haley on-the-record. I’ve also spoken with nearly 70 people who know her: friends, associates, donors, staffers, former colleagues. From those conversations, two things are clear. First, Nikki Haley is going to run for president in 2024. Second, she doesn’t know which Nikki Haley will be on the ballot.”

Haley also said that she didn’t believe Trump had a chance of winning in a 2024 election scenario.

“I don’t think he can,” she admitted. “He’s fallen so far.”

“I think his business is suffering at this point,” she added. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have. I think he’s lost his social media, which meant the world to him. I mean, I think he’s lost the things that really could have kept him moving.”

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump’s Defense Team Absolutely Ruins Democrats With 13 Minute Montage of “Fight” Word Like Trump Did

Published

on

The Democrats demonized President Trump for using the word ‘fight’. Trump’s attorneys responded today with a collage of clips from each of the Democrats in the room using the word ‘fight’.

This portion of today’s events on Capitol Hill was excellent. The Democrats claim that because President Trump used the word ‘fight’ in his speech on January 6th in Washington D.C. However, what every Democrat in that room forgot was that they too had used the word previously in political speech.

The montage went on for 13 minutes. (The video montage starts at 7:10 timeframe.)

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump Attorneys Destroy House Managers on Lying to American Public and Using Manipulated Tweet as Evidence

Published

on

President Trump’s defense team took the floor of the US Senate on Friday in defense of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Attorney David Schoen absolutely destroyed the House Managers when he took to the floor of the US Senate.

At one point Schoen played video of the Democrat lawmakers lying about a Trump tweet.

House Impeachment Manager Eric Swalwell gave a riveting performance on Wednesday reading off Trump’s tweets with emotional appeal.

During this theatrical performance, Swalwell read off a Trump retweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.

But there was one problem with the tweet. It was photoshopped.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence has never been verified by Twitter. Democrats faked that to make it look more important.

On Friday Trump Attorney David Schoen destroyed Democrats for lying about this to the American public.

WATCH:

Continue Reading

News

White House Suspends Deputy Press Secretary For Allegedly Sexually Harassing, Threatening Reporter

Published

on

The White House announced on Friday that it was suspending Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo after a report surfaced alleging that he sexually harassed and threatened a female reporter who was getting ready to publish a report revealing that he was dating a reporter who had previously been tasked with covering Democrat Joe Biden.

“The confrontation began on Inauguration Day, January 20, after [Politico reporter Tara] Palmeri, a coauthor of Politico’s Playbook, contacted [Axios political reporter Alexi] McCammond for comment while one of her male colleagues left a message for Ducklo,” Vanity Fair reported. “Ducklo subsequently called a Playbook editor to object to the story, but was told to call the Playbook reporters with his concerns. But instead of calling the male reporter who initially contacted him, Ducklo tried to intimidate Palmeri by phone in an effort to kill the story. ‘I will destroy you,’ Ducklo told her, according to the sources, adding that he would ruin her reputation if she published it.”

“During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was ‘jealous’ that an unidentified man in the past had ‘wanted to f***’ McCammond ‘and not you,’” the report added. “Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being ‘jealous’ of his relationship with McCammond.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said following the report that Ducklo has been suspended for a week over the incident.

“TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life,” Psaki wrote on Twitter. “He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President.”

“In addition to his initial apology, he has sent the reporter a personal note expressing his profound regret,” she continued. “With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay. In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.”

Reporters called out the administration over the incident, highlighting how the Trump administration did not treat reporters that way as well as issues with the timeline of events with regard to the White House taking action to address the incident.

“The Vanity Fair piece indicates that Politico editors reached to the WH after the incident first occurred and the WH acknowledged it was inappropriate,” Spectator editor Amber Athey wrote on Twitter. “But they clearly didn’t have any interest in disciplining Ducklo until his behavior was made public.”

New York Magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzi wrote on Twitter: “I covered Donald Trump for 6 years. It is saying something that this behavior — from a Biden official — shocks me.”

Grabien founder Tom Elliott highlighted the following remarks that Biden made a few weeks ago: “If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot, on the spot. No if, ands, or buts. Everybody — everybody is entitled to be treated with decency & dignity.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper responded to the quote, writing: “Standards that are not upheld are not standards. They’re lies.”

Continue Reading

Trending Today