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
  • Michael says:

    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!

  • Evangeline King says:

    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.

  • Mickey says:

    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!

  • Sesa says:

    Seriously? Fake orgasm?
    And you’re not embarrassed? I’m embarrassed for you.
    Good luck with that

  • Linda says:

    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

  • CF
    >