The Story Behind The Whistleblower Email Screw-UpFriday night, we reported that the House Judiciary Committee had mistakenly sent the email addresses of would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the committee’s Justice Department politicization tip line. A committee spokesperson responded to that story with a statement apologizing for the “technological error.”
In a statement released this afternoon (which can be read in full below) a committee spokesperson clarified that the error was, in fact, human. For those of you interested in the nitty gritty, the “nonpartisan, clerical employee” of the committee who was tasked with sending the email out to the list screwed up by assuming that checking “private” in Microsoft Outlook’s Distribution List function meant that recipient names would be hidden. Alas, not so.
The full statement is below.
The tip line was created to be a confidential method for Justice Department employees to provide the Judiciary Committee with information that might aid the Committee in its ongoing investigation of alleged politicization at the Justice Department. Because of the confidentiality agreement, the Committee will not discuss any emails sent on this tip line. An erroneous communication was sent that may have compromised the anonymity of recipients of the email. An earlier statement labeled this a “technological error.” To be clear, this was a user error in operating the email program.
The Committee apologizes for the concern this error may have caused, and is making every effort to protect the confidentiality of those who chose to provide information on the tip line. Any whistleblowers who sent in tips to this website are entitled to full legal protection. We are determined to ensure that they receive that protection and are taking steps to further that objective.
The following is a detailed chronology of this tip line and of the error that occurred:
1. In the course of several investigations this year, the House Judiciary Committee received information that there were individuals who wanted to share information about wrongdoing at the Department of Justice but were reluctant to do so over the phone. It was determined that it would be desirable for them to have a means of electronically communicating with the Committee.
2. On or about June 20, the tip line web page was launched. Within a day or two thereafter, the Committee Minority raised concerns with the House Parliamentarian that the terms of the web page might violate the Rules of the House. Specifically, the Minority asserted that, because the web page solicited the tips, the tips were Committee records and the Minority was, then, entitled to equitable access to these records and, therefore, access to the tips could not be restricted to Majority staff and Majority Members. The Parliamentarian agreed with the Minorityâs interpretation of the Rules.
3. Majority and Minority staff engaged in discussions to determine what restrictions could be placed on access to the tips, consistent with House rules, which would help secure the confidentiality of the information. It was agreed that during those discussions neither the Majority or Minority would have access to the tips.
4. The Majority and Minority recently reached an agreement as to the conditions for access to the tips. Specifically, it was agreed that the tips would be held in “Executive Session,” with access limited to Committee members and specifically designated staff, and that any broader release of the tips could only occur upon a vote of the full Committee. The Committee voted to approve a resolution that reflected the agreement on October 24.
5. Because the conditions for access to the tips had been changed from what had been indicated on the web page, the resolution further specified that a Committee staff member would advise everyone who had submitted information via the tip line of the changed conditions for access and giving them three business days to withdraw any information submitted. During these three business days, the Resolution specified, it would continue to be the case that no Committee staff or Member would review the tips.
6. A nonpartisan, clerical employee of the Committee was tasked with sending the email.
7. To carry out this task, the employee created two distribution lists in Microsoft Outlook called “Right Justice” and “Right Justice2”. The employeeâs recollection is that a checkbox in the Outlook Distribution List function was checked which was marked “private.” The employee mistakenly believed that this would hide the names on the distribution list from the recipients. However, in fact, while it appeared to the employee that the name of the distribution list would be the only text on the “to:” field of the email, all addresses were shown when the email was received. This was an inadvertent clerical error, and contrary to speculation, not the result of “hacking” or any malicious act.
8. As a result of this mistake, all email addresses of all recipients were visible to everyone who received the email. No further information or content of any of the emails was revealed.
9. There were more than 150 emails on the list. Among the emails on the list was apparently the public email address of the Vice President as well as other presumably fictitious email addresses containing profanity. Presumably, these were submitted as pranks to the tip line. The Committee has not accessed the content of the emails purporting to be sent from these addresses and has no way of knowing how or why these emails are included in the list.
10. A substantial number of email addresses also appear to include portions of the proper names of individuals. To comply with the resolution of the Committee and to avoid even further potential exposure from potential whistleblowers, the Committee will not release the list of recipients or any further details about the list.
11. The Committee is familiar with legal protections involving whistleblowers and stands ready to assist any whistleblower who feels that they are in any jeopardy as a result of this mistake or for any other reason. We have not yet been contacted by any such whistleblower in this regard.
