Biden-Harris Justice Dept. sends $2 million to Strzok, Page

[Donatello]

explain how government phones used to extensively plan an "insurance policy" to stop Trump is private communication

snore.

 

[TangoNoCash]

explain how government phones used to extensively plan an "insurance policy" to stop Trump is private communication

Her attorneys said in a statement that “the evidence was overwhelming that the release of text messages to the press in December 2017 was for partisan political purposes and was against the law.”

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page settle lawsuits with Justice Department over leaked text messages

The lawsuits were filed by Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the investigation into Russian election interference in 2016, and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer.

www.nbcnews.com

Usually it’s much cheaper to settle these things out of court. Happens every day in the US. Again how is that corrupt? The government opened them up to a ridiculous amount of harassment. That’s a no no in the workplace.

 

[Sand Castle]

Her attorneys said in a statement that “the evidence was overwhelming that the release of text messages to the press in December 2017 was for partisan political purposes and was against the law.”

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page settle lawsuits with Justice Department over leaked text messages

The lawsuits were filed by Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the investigation into Russian election interference in 2016, and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer.

www.nbcnews.com

Usually it’s much cheaper to settle these things out of court. Happens every day in the US. Again how is that corrupt? The government opened them up to a ridiculous amount of harassment. That’s a no no in the workplace.

So of course Trump's DOJ is to blame.

 

[TangoNoCash]

So of course Trump's DOJ is to blame.

Was it Trump’s DOJ that handled it? How else would you expect that to work?

 

[Callen]

Important to remember who led the Administration that illegally leaked the texts to create a false political narrative that was later debunked by the IG and a special prosecutor. That is waht caused the lawsuit in the first place....it was Trump.

"The two had sued the Justice Department over a 2017 episode in which officials shared copies with reporters of text messages that they had sent each other, including ones that described Trump as an “idiot” and a ”loathsome human” and that called the prospect of a Trump victory “terrifying.”

Strzok, who also investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, was fired after the text messages came to light. Page resigned. They later sued, alleging that department officials leaked the texts to promote a false narrative of anti-Trump bias within the FBI and to elevate the department’s status with Trump after his relentless attacks on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions."

 

[Donatello]

Important to remember who led the Administration that illegally leaked the texts to create a false political narrative that was later debunked by the IG and a special prosecutor. That is waht caused the lawsuit in the first place....it was Trump.

"The two had sued the Justice Department over a 2017 episode in which officials shared copies with reporters of text messages that they had sent each other, including ones that described Trump as an “idiot” and a ”loathsome human” and that called the prospect of a Trump victory “terrifying.”

Strzok, who also investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, was fired after the text messages came to light. Page resigned. They later sued, alleging that department officials leaked the texts to promote a false narrative of anti-Trump bias within the FBI and to elevate the department’s status with Trump after his relentless attacks on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions."

Sure is a lot of selective memory these days in MAGA land. It's almost like their cognition is failing.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

explain how government phones used to extensively plan an "insurance policy" to stop Trump is private communication

Because text messages sent from Strzok's government phone are "records" of his contained in a "system of records."

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 [exceptions removed.]

5 U.S.C § 552a(b)

 

[anatta]

Because text messages sent from Strzok's government phone are "records" of his contained in a "system of records."

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 [exceptions removed.]

5 U.S.C § 552a(b)

lol that is a PRIVACY ACT to protect individuals from the FBI disclosing.

“The historical context of the Act is important to an understanding of its remedial purposes: In 1974, Congress was concerned with curbing the illegal surveillance and investigation of individuals by federal agencies that had been exposed during the Watergate scandal; it was also concerned with potential abuses presented by the government’s increasing use of computers to store and retrieve personal data by means of a universal identifier — such as an individual’s social security number.” Dept. of Justice, Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974, 2010 Edition. Also see GAO reports on Privacy.

It does not protect the FBI from leaks/disclosures. government employees using government phones have no expectation of privacy
Strozk/Page were employees of the FBi - not outside private individuals

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

It does not protect the FBI from leaks/disclosures.

Of course it does. It protects everyone, including all federal employees. There's no "but what if I hate them" exception.

government employees using government phones have no expectation of privacy

They have no expectation of privacy from the government - their employer. But the Privacy Act makes it illegal for the FBI to leak that information to the public.

Strozk/Page were employees of the FBi - not outside private individuals

The Privacy Act applies to employees of the FBI, along with all other federal employees.

 

[Rumblefish]

The same DOJ that planted electronic eaves dropping in Trumps headquarters violated the privacy act? The same DOJ that used a false dossier with no corroboration to get warrants to begin with? I want to make sure we're talking about the same DOJ. The same DOJ that went through Melania's underwear? Same one right?

Yes??? And???

Again, YOUR ex-PRESIDENT, Trump, argued to let the POTUS do these things that you find problematic...and to evade civil and criminal liability.

When the POTUS directs the DOJ to do something that is when - per Justice Roberts - the POTUS is doing an "official act" with the head of an executive agency (DOJ). You can't question his motives and you can't use any of it as evidence.

And YOUR ex-PRESIDENT, Trump, convinced the Supreme Court to let ANY President - including Biden - get away with it.

Meanwhile.......President Biden proposes an amendment to do away with "presidential immunity" and HE is the bad guy???? (and, btw, if Biden actually thought he was doing something criminal would HE propose an amendment abolishing presidential immunity??)

 

[anatta]

Her attorneys said in a statement that “the evidence was overwhelming that the release of text messages to the press in December 2017 was for partisan political purposes and was against the law.”

its not agaisnt the law. the privacy act covers individuals from governement searches with disclosures

Usually it’s much cheaper to settle these things out of court. Happens every day in the US. Again how is that corrupt? The government opened them up to a ridiculous amount of harassment. That’s a no no in the workplace.

Page and Strozk were acting in a corrupt endeavor to influence the election. Thats the corruption which is never protected workplace product

 

[anatta]

Of course it does. It protects everyone, including all federal employees. There's no "but what if I hate them" exception.



They have no expectation of privacy from the government - their employer. But the Privacy Act makes it illegal for the FBI to leak that information to the public.



The Privacy Act applies to employees of the FBI, along with all other federal employees.

not even close. everything in the Act is written for individuals, not govt employees
The information is about protecting individual records -not employees whom are not protected

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a | Bureau of Justice Assistance

Background“The historical context of the Act is important to an understanding of its remedial purposes: In 1974, Congress was concerned with curbing the illegal surveillance and investigation of individuals by federal agencies that had been exposed during the Watergate scandal; it was also...

bja.ojp.gov

The Privacy Act “protects certain federal government records pertaining to individuals. In particular, the Act covers systems of records that an agency maintains and retrieves by an individual’s name or other personal identifier (e.g., social security number)…. In general, the Privacy Act prohibits unauthorized disclosures of the records it protects. It also gives individuals the right to review records about themselves, to find out if these records have been disclosed, and to request corrections or amendments of these records, unless the records are legally exempt.”

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

not even close. everything in the Act is written for individuals, not govt employees
The information is about protecting individual records -not employees whom are not protected

Government employees are "individuals." They are most certainly protected by the Privacy Act.

I am a federal employment lawyer. This is literally what I do for a living.

 

[Donatello]

Yes??? And???

Again, YOUR ex-PRESIDENT, Trump, argued to let the POTUS do these things that you find problematic...and to evade civil and criminal liability.

When the POTUS directs the DOJ to do something that is when - per Justice Roberts - the POTUS is doing an "official act" with the head of an executive agency (DOJ). You can't question his motives and you can't use any of it as evidence.

And YOUR ex-PRESIDENT, Trump, convinced the Supreme Court to let ANY President - including Biden - get away with it.

Meanwhile.......President Biden proposes an amendment to do away with "presidential immunity" and HE is the bad guy???? (and, btw, if Biden actually thought he was doing something criminal would HE propose an amendment abolishing presidential immunity??)

Perhaps MAGA logic isn't logic at all? They don't see that a President, in this case Trump, a 35 x convicted felon, should have total immunity for "official duty" crimes. While Biden, the current President who beat Trump, is saying no President is ever above the law. I can understand Trump's dishonesty, but why do you think Biden, who is a criminal worse than Trump according to MAGA, would disagree? Where's the logic?

 

[Donatello]

Government employees are "individuals." They are most certainly protected by the Privacy Act.

I am a federal employment lawyer. This is literally what I do for a living.

Perhaps your obvious bias is blinding you to the MAGA truth?

 

[TangoNoCash]

its not agaisnt the law. the privacy act covers individuals from governement searches with disclosures

Page and Strozk were acting in a corrupt endeavor to influence the election. Thats the corruption which is never protected workplace product

The government had the right to have that information. They did not have to right to give it to the media to put them on blast. Hopefully that makes some sense to you. You are implying they paid millions just for fun and that there was no legal exposure. That’s ridiculous on its face.

 

[anatta]

Government employees are "individuals." They are most certainly protected by the Privacy Act.

I am a federal employment lawyer. This is literally what I do for a living.

you are protected by specific agency umbrella laws against disclosure.
Privacy rights are individual (records) - they are not for your role as a government employee

The Privacy Act of 1974 guarantees the right of individuals to be protected against an unwarranted invasion of their privacy from the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information. It is intended to protect individuals from an invasion of personal privacy through federal agency misuse.

The Privacy Act “protects certain federal government records pertaining to individuals.

 

[anatta]

The government had the right to have that information. They did not have to right to give it to the media to put them on blast. Hopefully that makes some sense to you. You are implying they paid millions just for fun and that there was no legal exposure. That’s ridiculous on its face.

They not protected individual records. you'd have to find a way to show espionage or unauthorized disclosure
but not as individual privacy rights

 

[ColdHardTruth]

DOJ is utterly corrupted.. exposing the Strozk/Page text messages was part of an investigation -not a violation of their privacy
On government phones!

Honor among thieves: Biden-Harris Justice Dept. sends $2 million to Strzok, Page

Consider it honor among thieves, albeit at the department charged with serving justice.

nypost.com

Congratulations, US taxpayers: You get to pay Peter Strzok and Lisa Page $2 million.


The Biden-Harris Justice Department just settled a suit filed by the two ex-employees about supposed privacy violations that publicized their anti-Trump messages (on government phones) in the early phases in the get-Trump “Russian interference” probe.


This follows Justice’s 2021 gift to another anti-Trump crusader, Andrew McCabe — restoring retirement benefits he lost when he was fired for illegal leaks to the press and lying about them (under oath) to internal investigators.

a combination of blatant political bias at Justice, elite Washington hysteria about Trump and major-media malpractice blew it up into perhaps the most successful misinformation campaign ever, kneecapping Trump for much of his term.

They made McCabe whole pretty quickly; now that Trump looks likely to return the White House, with his picks to clean house at Justice, they’ve settled a winnable lawsuit to reward Strzok and Page.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/26/peter-strzok-lawsuit-settlement-00171498

The pair discussed efforts to “stop” Trump from becoming president and characterized aspects of their work as an “insurance policy.”

Trump also harbored suspicion about the two because of their roles in the early stages of the FBI’s investigation into his 2016 presidential campaign’s links to Russia. Trump spent years mocking Strzok and Page in crude terms over their relationship and contending their text messages bolstered claims that the Russia investigation was politically motivated.

You've been told numerous times that the post is not a valid source.

Why do you keep posting their lies?

 

[anatta]

You've been told numerous times that the post is not a valid source.

Why do you keep posting their lies?

I also used a Politico source -see it? .... just for you

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I also used a Politico source -see it? .... just for you

I did. The FBI should not have released those text messages and Trump should NEVER have been consulted on HR matters concerning the FBI.

This needs to lead to another charge being filed against Trump.

 

[TangoNoCash]

They not protected individual records. you'd have to find a way to show espionage or unauthorized disclosure
but not as individual privacy rights

Well the lawyers involved disagreed with your opinion.

 

[NolanVoyd]

What an amazing country we live in. Plot to prevent someone from becoming president and get a 2 million dollar reward.

Dishonest take.

Try again.

 

[DrewPaul]

Dishonest take.

Try again.

What an amazing country we live in. Plot to prevent someone from becoming president and get a 2 million dollar reward.

I've given my take. Give your take why my claim is dishonest? By using the word dishonest rather than mistaken or misinformed, means you have evidence I know my claim is false and my intent is to deceive everyone. That is a weighty charge that should be backed up.

What's your take?

 

[NolanVoyd]

What an amazing country we live in. Plot to prevent someone from becoming president and get a 2 million dollar reward.

I've given my take.

your take is dishonest.

you are smarter than that.