Lisa Page Sues FBI and Justice Department For Privacy Violations

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is suing the FBI and Department of Justice for violating the Federal Privacy Act in the release of their test messages to former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok. President Donald Trump has made repeated and mocking references to the texts, including salacious and romantic messages between the two former FBI employees who engaged in an extramarital affair. Many of us have recoiled at the level of disclosure of this affair and particularly the President’s inappropriate taunts, including last night at a rally in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit could raise some interesting questions of the privacy affords such records, but it is unlikely to prevail.

The complaint states that Page, 39, has had to deal with a “permanent loss of earning capacity due to reputational damage” as well as “the cost of therapy to cope with unwanted national media exposure and harassment” caused by the disclosure. On its face, it is not clear that the release of the emails were the cause in fact for that damage. The affair was a matter of investigation and, even without the release of the emails, that fact would have likely generated much of the damaging (and often disturbing) commentary.

The most interesting factual representation however is found on page 2:

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 InspectorGeneral (“DOJ OIG” or “OIG”) for evidence of potential bias in the FBI’s investigation of formerSecretary 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 Dec. 12, 2017, Page said in the complaint, “DOJ and/or FBI officials disclosed” her sensitive text messages “directly to a select group of reporters to ensure they would become public.” Page alleged that after discovery, she would be able to prove that senior officials knew they were violating the law, and that their conduct was “willful and intentional.”

 The Privacy Act covers official material and records, including personal information, private conversations, and other sensitive material. There is no exception for “newsworthy” facts.

Worse yet, the complaint alleges:

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 GeneralJefferson 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

The problem for the court is that the emails were part of various investigations that concluded that both Page and Strzok acted improperly. Moreover their motivations and relationship has become part of the wider discussion on the foundations for the Russian investigation.

Nevertheless, if the lawsuit survives the inevitable motion to dismiss, it could lay bare internal motivations or statements within the Justice Department in discovery. The Justice Department is not keen on such discovery and this litigation would take years to be successful.

It will however raise some very difficult legal issues and we will be following it.

The Complaint can be read here.

28 thoughts on “Lisa Page Sues FBI and Justice Department For Privacy Violations”

  1. No sweat. Page abandons her street corner and goes to 9th Circuit who somewhere in there includes a lot of chances for us to learn just how scummy they were when they looked into their spouses eyes…and lied.

  2. “…particularly the President’s inappropriate taunts, including last night at a rally in Pennsylvania.”


  3. This is the kind of nonsense you get when you fixate on intentions.

    Page’s intentions are irrelevant. Strzok’s. The DOJ’s Trump’s.

    What is relevant is is the actual rights of parties, and the law.

    Page has no actual rights in her texts on a government issued phone.

    With respect to disclosure – the relevant issue and forum is any prosecution against her or Strzok. Violations of her rights as a criminal defendant are punished by dismissing or limiting charges against her.

    While I think Horrowitz’s conclusions about political bias were naive, he did get on thing dead bang right.

    The critical matter is the actions taken by Strzok, Page and the rest of these people.
    Evidence of political bias and bad intentions DOES NOT make an otherwise legitimate action into an illegitimate one. The absence of biases or bad motivations DOES NOT make an illegitimate act legitimate.

    We would all like to understand the reasons why people do things.

    But it is what they DO that is or is not a crime. Not why they did it.

  4. Interesting. I did not think that the Federal Privacy Act would cover text messages sent over a government phone, which were part of a federal investigation. The text messages themselves were evidence of a conspiracy to oust Trump. Would that not be relevant public knowledge?

    Is there an expectation of privacy when you use your work phone to conduct an affair, as well as engage in unethical behavior?

    I’m not sure what the law says about this. It would be a shame if the public was not allowed to know these facts.

  5. She’s worried about emotional damage done to her by coverage from the national media. First of all, sue the media, they’re the ones that showered her with attention. Her and her pimp daddy boy friend were screwing with the president of the United States as well as with each other.

  6. Had Little Miss Page attacked and challenged the authority of the monarch, sovereign or king, Little Missy would no longer be with us; except in disarticulated form. She should thank the American Founders for eliminating the office of “His Highness.”

  7. This entire hellish show, every god forsaken felony and misdemeanor crime committed by DNC deep state moles like these scum Page and Strozk, Comey, et. all, was for two purposes: pre-election to positively insure a bullet in the head of Trump’s campaign (failed obviously). Post-election, to let any future multi-billionaire know, and anyone who considered or actually supported such person know, if you attempt to rise to this position (POTUS), the deep state is going to rip out the heart of every one of you, stomp on it with the boots of our armed storm troopers, and eat in front of your family, then do the same to your family and every one of your friends.

    The status quo wants nothing changed, they want one thing and one thing only: they want to insure the gravy train to keep running exactly the way they set it up.

    I am happy to list any and every failure of Trump. But this was and is an ongoing coup. The fact that felony perjurers like Brennan are still living outside a prison cell is simply unacceptable.

    1. Edit, should be: “…Post-election, to let any future independent multi-billionaire know…”

      If you’re just another deep state type multi-billionaire like Bloomberg, you and your money are always welcome with open arms.

  8. Page and Strozk were both fired from jobs making over $100k. Their combined salary and benefits package cost the Federal Treasury almost exactly 2.5x their annual salary, and this statement is based on personal knowledge, not conjecture. They both live in zip codes with among the highest cost of living on earth.

    During Page’s long absence from public view she obviously had costly and extensive cosmetic enhancement surgery.

    Would someone please tell me what or who the heck pays the rent and puts food in the pie holes of these two felonious misfit DNC mole scum bags? Are they personal employees of Soros or what? Give me a freekin’ break! It’s gotta cost at least $200k annually to barely make ends meet anywhere near the DC hell hole.

    1. Their combined salary and benefits package cost the Federal Treasury almost exactly 2.5x their annual salary, and this statement is based on personal knowledge, not conjecture.

      Your source of personal knowledge needs to consult an actuary.

      1. Yes, you may be correct. Thinking about it, the multiplier may be 1.5, not 2.5 as I typed.

        They retire at age 50, with at least 90% of their salary (maybe 100%), multiplied x 30 years longevity, plus medical benefits which cost the Treasury about $13k annual in today’s dollars. So that adds up to about $3.5M in retirement salary and medical benefits.

        Regardless, the pay and benefits package is rare and becomes only more rare with each passing day for persons not feeding at the government trough like these alleged “servants.” When you compare pay and benefits package, tax payers are the “servants;” the roles are the inverse of what government employees would have taxpayers believe.. .

        1. I think retirement pensions for some in the military may be available at 50, not for garden variety federal workers. This contends the median is 63

          Nationally, the median retirement age for police officers is 55 and for schoolteachers is 59. Public sector employees do have overly generous benefits, but the situation isn’t as appalling as it was 40 years ago. (The three federal employees in my family include one retiring at 62, one retiring at 65, and one still working at 65).

    1. Um, no. The FBI can retrieve info from agency-owned phones for legitimate, official purposes, but there’s nothing in the Privacy Act that allows the agency to release that info to the media.

  9. ‘Just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.’
    — FBI agent Peter Strzok text message his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

    What could be more relevant to the plot to subvert their political opponents than political texts between to senior FBI officials spearheading the investigation?

    Transparency is a foundational value. Except when it is embarrassing to the progs. Soon the poor dear will be on CNN with a Go Fund Me account and a book deal.

    We really do have two sets of laws.

  10. “Reputational damage”? As a defense lawyer friend of mine reminded me one time, you have to have a good reputation before you can damage it!
    This ho?— not so much.

    1. LOL 🙂

      Sorry, that’s what I was just thinking about Prof Turley, that he might should take a few more steps back then he did last week, away from his Coke/Meth head drug dealing pedo friends Dims/Rinos Tratiors, that are so busted trafficking 13 yr old kids & younger plus other crimes against humanity.

      Sorry Prof Turley, no matter you’re great word smithing you’re not going to put this toothpaste back in the tube.

      I suggest Turley ask for a settlement.

    2. Attention Stockman Prof Turley, clean up on aisle 9, CJ John Roberts just Puked after hearing IG Horowitz comments. LOL

      “Howoritz, in one short sentence, destroyed the former FBI Director’s, (CJ John Roberts, head of the FISA court), credibility by explaining simply…

      “I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this FISA.” ”


  11. As long as discovery is open to the public, I support this suicidal attempt to resurrect her career. Judicial Watch is still looking for the text messages that were scrubbed by Mueller.

  12. One thing about the Pinkos, they can sure act outraged, even when they are wrong.

    Ms Page cheated on her husband, humiliated her children, damaged another marriage, arguably plotted to subvert an election, and now she is the victim.

    What a disgusting woman.

    Has she no shame?

      1. how many wrongs make a right. All of them do not make a right they just make a pile of socialists.

Comments are closed.