Lisa Page plans to defy GOP subpoena for her testimony, her lawyer says

[DonViejo]

Source: CNN



By Jeremy Herb and Laura Jarrett, CNN

Updated 11:23 PM ET, Tue July 10, 2018

(CNN)Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is defying a congressional subpoena and will not appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for a scheduled closed-door interview.

Page's lawyer Amy Jeffress said in a statement that the committee issued a subpoena on Saturday without providing Page with the scope of the interview and before she was able to view the materials that had been produced to Congress, such as her anti-Trump text messages exchanged with FBI agent Peter Strzok.

"Lisa and I went to the FBI today to review the materials that were previously produced to Congress relating to her proposed interview, but after waiting for more than three hours, we were not provided with any documents," Jeffress said. "We have asked the Committees to schedule another date that would allow sufficient time for her to prepare. The Committees have not honored this request. As a result, Lisa is not going to appear for an interview at this time."

The decision not to appear for Wednesday's scheduled deposition is sure to provoke a response from the committee, which could move to hold her in contempt of Congress.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/lisa-page-defy-subpoena/index.html

[yallerdawg]

1. What kind of a country do we live in...

where private, personal communications are subject to Congressional investigation, insane "presidential" scorn and comment, and ridiculous disproven Conspiracy Theory?

These freakin' Rs have no shame, no sense of decency, no boundaries.

This is exactly how the govenment overlords would insidiously come after privacy and free speech. Silence our expression of thought.

Really illiberal. Wherever you find it.

[SharonAnn]

5. She/they used their government accounts. No privacy violation.

[yallerdawg]

6. We are allowed to carry on private conversations.

These were private messages on a phone system. We self-identify public and private records related to our government jobs.

The IG's office said these text-message conversations had no substance in the matter.

Is loyalty to an administration or political party the standard for privacy now? Do we have no expectation of privacy in communicatiosn?

This is where the 'surveilance state' takes foot - convincing us that all is acceptable.

[hughee99]

7. You don't have any expectation of privacy using your government

Or company issued phone. My company told me that flat out when they gave it to me. Personal correspondence is to be handled on personal devices for your protection and theirs.

[yallerdawg]

8. You're going to insist on missing the point.

I'm glad you are so...what's the word?

"Compliant."

[hughee99]

9. No, it's you that are conflating two issues. You're talking about the "surveillance state" like the

government is bugging your bedroom, but the example you provide is the government having access to text conversations between two government employees using government issued cellphones.

[yallerdawg]

11. Read asshole's twitter comments about "the lovers."

I'm not conflating a damn thing.

[hughee99]

13. You are conflating the "surveillance state" with the government having access to the correspondance

of government employees conducted on government devices. Asshole's twitter comments have nothing to do with it.

[yallerdawg]

16. Asshole's public "twitter comments have nothing to do with it."

Let's just disagree, shall we?

[hughee99]

17. If you think that assholes twitter comments are

An example of the surveillance state, we will have to just agree to disagree.

[yallerdawg]

18. Of course.

The head of the Executive Branch of the Federal government promoting Conspiracy Theory contrary to the IG investigation's conclusions pertaining to these private conversations - not an aspect of the 'surveillance state.'

When this is the more subtle argument regarding government intrusion into our lives - legal private conversations being twisted and manipulated against us for a political or statist agenda.

But you go on, keep insisting this has nothing to do with surveillance.

As if 'compliance' alone isn't insidious enough.

You recall when they were listening to EVERY conversation we were having? Referring to it in the past tense for no particular reason.

[hughee99]

19. When you have a private conversation in a venue where you have no

Expectation of privacy, it’s not an example of the surveillance state. If they had the same conversation on their private devices, you’d have a much better argument. I know this isn’t what you want to hear now, but perhaps you’ll change your mind if Mueller starts going after the “private conversations” on the Trump administrations government devices.

[yallerdawg]

20. There IS an expectation of privacy.

Do you think all these people are idiots? You must.

There is government business - and there is none-of-their-business.

It's terrible that "we" could be so accepting of blanket surveillance. Well - not including me.

[hughee99]

21. Yes and the none-of-your-business belongs on

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2018, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Your own device. Every company is up-front about that, do you think the government isn’t? If a kid on his first day on the job can understand it, don’t you think a government employee with a law degree can too?

The idea that you think this is an example of blanket surveillance tells me that there’s no way I’m going to convince you that you’re wrong, and no way you’re going to convince me that you’re right.

[roscoeroscoe]

26. Sorry, no

Everytime you log into government comm gear, you get the privacy warning.

Not private, subject to monitoring.

[yallerdawg]

27. Private legal lawful exchanges between persons...

on government-issued devices may be monitored and archived for CRIMINAL and SECURITY issues.

THE IG report cleared these two individuals, saying their conversations reflected poorly on department neutrality - not a freakin' crime.

What we are seeing is the political weaponization of these private conversations at the highest level possible. It's bullshit, and no "warning" when you sign on indicates personal conversations and thoughts are a public record. Hence, an expectation of privacy.

Maybe the present administration should just 'nationalize' all devices as security threats - issue a 'warning' when we sign on - since even 'liberal progressives' are so compliant.

[meadowlander]

10. But I imagine you have an expectation of not being dragged in front of a Congressional committee

because you expressed an opinion unfavorable to your boss. Especially after an IG report just concluded that that private opinion (whether expressed on a government phone or not) had no influence on your work product.

What is Congress going to find out by subpoenaing her? Whether or not she floats?

This, youngsters, is what an actual witch hunt looks like. And good on her for refusing to cooperate with it.

[hughee99]

12. We've been down this road before (not you and I)...

Judge Rules Bush Advisers Can’t Ignore Subpoenas
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01subpoena.html

If white house advisers have to show for congressional subpoenas, surely people in the justice department or FBI do as well. My belief is that she needs to show up. Whether she says anything or not is another matter. If you think it's okay for government employees to ignore a subpoena from congress, remember that when we retake congress and start our own investigations, which republicans will surely also call witch hunts.

[meadowlander]

14. I think it's up to her

as long as she is willing to accept the consequences.

If she shows up and refuses to say anything, she'll still be held in contempt of Congress so why not save herself the commute?

And since the whole thing is just a fishing expedition for something to fill Sean Hannity's A block, what is in it for the rest of America, let alone her, to appear?

I think a subpoena for a Congressional inquiry needs to be based on a public understanding of the potential value of whatever might come out of that inquiry.

Lisa Page's stupid text messages to her married boyfriend are not going to tell Congress or the American people anything about anything except that they didn't like Trump (or Bernie Sanders or lots of other people) and *shock and horror* they were cheating on their spouses.

The Inquiry is not going to conclude that this impacted her job at the FBI because we literally last week had an IG report that looked into it and concluded that it didn't.

And anyway, she's not refusing to appear. She's asking for a reasonable amount of time to prepare.

Do you think it's fine for Congress to jerk her around, make her wait three hours to pick up the material she needs to prepare (potentially thousands of pages) and expect her to show up for a partisan, highly public grilling a few days later?

[hughee99]

15. I think that congress needs to provide an adequate scope and reasonable amount of time to prepare,

but I don't think this is an example of the "surveillance state" nor do I think it's an attack on privacy or free speech. I also don't think it's okay to ignore the subpoena as long as you believe that it's a witch hunt and nothing will come of it. She's going to have to deal with the consequences of whatever she decides, I think she would be better to come before congress (given time to prepare) and say she's entitled to her personal opinions, and that if congress thinks that anything she's said can be shown to have compromised her work, they need to prove it. The IG didn't think so, and I don't think congress will be able to show otherwise.

I know it's way to late to say so, but people should have personal conversations on personal devices, but that's water under the bridge.

[get the red out]

2. Oh my GOD!

How can she not go offer contrition to our GOP over-lords for disparaging comments she texted about our Great Leader????? It just isn't done! Someone call the exalted MAGAs!!!!

[riversedge]

23. Did you see the Great Leader's tweet about this??....

The man is mad crazy!!

Trump tweeted on Tuesday, "I am on Air Force One flying to NATO and hear reports that the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by 13 Angry Democrats and people that worked for Obama for 8 years. Total disgrace!"

[get the red out]

25. Saw that

He is as mentally ill as he can get without talking to the toaster.

[riversedge]

28. I do think Trump is mentally ill. Serious.

[Scarsdale]

3. How many of the

Dubya cabal refused to honor subpoenas? Rove for one, plus others. Just dismissed them. Then they had the AG with a worse memory than an advanced Alzheimer's patient. Alberto did not "recollect" anything that happened. How legitimate are these hearings, when the gop members write their own reports, from their biased perspective?

[Puppyjive]

4. No Way

I would tell them to that I would be happy to appear if they get Sean Hannity's phone records. Just sayin.

[riversedge]

22. The article does not say that Chairman Goodlatte has provided her with any documents. If it were me

I would demand to have them also. Trump is always talking about being fair. It is an issue of fairness to me.

...........House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who issued the subpoena for Page to be interviewed, said in a statement that she has known for months that the committee wants to speak with her and has "no excuse for her failure to appear."
"We will use all tools at our disposal to obtain her testimony," the Virginia Republican said. "Americans across the country are alarmed at the bias exhibited by top officials at the Justice Department and FBI, and it is imperative Congress conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that never happens again."
The committee had scheduled Page's closed-door testimony one day before Strzok is set to testify publicly before the Judiciary and Oversight committees.
He testified behind closed doors last month, and his attorney has also clashed with Republicans on the two committees, accusing them of mischaracterizing Strzok's testimony and then refusing to release the transcript of his interview.

The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page while they worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into President Donald Trump and Russia have been cited by Trump and his allies as key evidence that the FBI's investigation is biased against the President................

[joanbarnes]

24. Aren't we ALL in contempt of congress?