Lisa Page has filed a lawsuit against the DOJ and the FBI claiming the leak of her text messages to the press was a violation of the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act protects federal employees from the release of personal information except under very narrowly defined circumstance. Page’s suit contends that the disclosure of her extra-marital affair constitutes just such a disclosure of private information and that the disclosure, late in the evening, was timed to distract attention from Rod Rosenstein’s scheduled testimony the following day and that Justice Department attempts to hide the source of the leak demonstrate the malice with which the leak was carried out.
It is not surprising that this suit was filed the day after the Horowitz Report cleared Ms. Page of any wrongdoing in the Trump/Russia investigation. While the filing of a motion to dismiss is a virtual certainty, the case appears to have rest on strong grounds and the fact that it was brought by Arnold and Porter – a top shelf DC law firm – indicates that this is not a fly-by-night nuisance suit.
It leads one to wonder whether some of the right-wing campaigns of personal vilification may end up having unintended consequences.
If there aren’t any more leaks, their first to report stories will decline sharply and since they’re already suffering, this may well be the nail in their coffin.
The IG Report made it clear that neither she nor Strozk did anything wrong.
Dunham basically disqualified his report this week by announcing that he disagreed with the IG Conclusions. For three years, I have heard our distinguished host claim Comey’s findings re Clinton were invalid because he rote his conclusion in advance of completing the investigation. Now Dunham has made a public political announcement of his conclusions in advance of completing his investigation. Obviously, let’s apply the same rules to Dunham as where applied to Comey. His report is a political hack job, not work waiting for and, fundamentally, not worth funding.
She’s not suing the papers, she’s suing the DOJ. This won’t effect the papers at all. The paper had no obligation to not print. The DOJ (allegedly) had an obligation to not tell.
Hey dude…long time no see. It’s good to see you back.
I’m referring to leaks and how those two entities get much of their information. If the leaks are stopped, it helps diminish these entities being used as partisan platforms to inject their agenda.
This issue connects to the case against Julian Assange, where a journalist (wiki leaks) is being held responsible for publishing material that a source has an obligation to keep secret.
The Times and the Post won that argument in the Pentagon Papers case.
