Not long ago, certain confidential financial records of Michael Cohen were leaked to the media. It was a really terrible sort of leak. These are private records of a private citizen that the government got through legal process which requires confidentiality be maintained. The Treasury Department Inspector General began an investigation to determine who the leaker is and how the leak happened. Now, according to the New Yorker, the leaker has spoken with that magazine and given his reasons for the leak, and they are really both amazing and awful at the same time. Here's how the New Yorker puts it:
That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.
You need a bit of background to understand what this leaker has told the New Yorker.
1. The leaker says that the information was being withheld from law enforcement. Think about that for a moment. The leaker is "a law-enforcement official" who had the records already. That really undercuts the idea that the information was being withheld from law enforcement. It's roughly the equivalent of President Trump leaking something to the press on the grounds that the information was being withheld from the White House. It's ridiculous on its face.
2. The leaker couldn't find the documents in a particular government data base used by law enforcement. The leaker, however, does not know why that was so. It's possible that access to the documents was restricted to a particular group of investigators who were working on the Cohen case. It's also possible that the entry of documents into the data base was not yet complete. It's also possible that the documents were actually in the data base but filed under a different designation than the one for which the leaker searched. Under no explanation, however, is it possible that the bank involved or Michael Cohen did not turn over the records to the government under a promise (and legal obligation) of confidentiality. The leaker's supposed complaint has to do with how the investigators filed the documents once received. In short, the leaker's own story is that he broke the law, violated an individual's privacy rights and potentially undermined any prosecution of Michael Cohen in the future because he didn't like the government's filing system. That's moronic.
I don't know who the leaker is. When his or her identity is determined, however, the leaker should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's the wages of stupidity.
That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.
You need a bit of background to understand what this leaker has told the New Yorker.
1. The leaker says that the information was being withheld from law enforcement. Think about that for a moment. The leaker is "a law-enforcement official" who had the records already. That really undercuts the idea that the information was being withheld from law enforcement. It's roughly the equivalent of President Trump leaking something to the press on the grounds that the information was being withheld from the White House. It's ridiculous on its face.
2. The leaker couldn't find the documents in a particular government data base used by law enforcement. The leaker, however, does not know why that was so. It's possible that access to the documents was restricted to a particular group of investigators who were working on the Cohen case. It's also possible that the entry of documents into the data base was not yet complete. It's also possible that the documents were actually in the data base but filed under a different designation than the one for which the leaker searched. Under no explanation, however, is it possible that the bank involved or Michael Cohen did not turn over the records to the government under a promise (and legal obligation) of confidentiality. The leaker's supposed complaint has to do with how the investigators filed the documents once received. In short, the leaker's own story is that he broke the law, violated an individual's privacy rights and potentially undermined any prosecution of Michael Cohen in the future because he didn't like the government's filing system. That's moronic.
I don't know who the leaker is. When his or her identity is determined, however, the leaker should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's the wages of stupidity.
No comments:
Post a Comment