Mann is an “aggrieved innocent”? But Cuccinnelli lost his bid to get Mann’s e-mails on an arbitrarily decided legal technicality.
From a letter to the Washington Post:
Regarding the March 12 editorial “Mr. Cuccinelli’s witch hunt”:
Irresponsible prosecutors such as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II engage in witch hunts against people such as climate scientist Michael E. Mann because they can, thanks to sovereign immunity laws that shield government officials from liability lawsuits related to the performance of their official duties. Basically, Mr. Cuccinelli must have engaged in criminal or corrupt activity to have been held liable, and even then the taxpayers would probably have picked up the tab.
That’s why such shield laws should be changed. If Mr. Cuccinelli were at risk of losing personal assets, then he would have thought twice before engaging in such a reckless pursuit. The time has come to allow aggrieved innocents such as Mr. Mann, who have been terrorized by crusading prosecutors and law enforcement officials, to sue their tormentors.
Brad Schwartz, Olney
Alex,
I take it that your remark is directed at me. Maybe you don’t understand discovery. Cuccinelli would be able to depose Mann, asking virtually any question he wants, and seeking any documentary backup he feels that he needs. I will let you make up your own mind how likely Mann will be to laying himself open for that.
Man should be able to sue Cuccinelli????
But, wouldn’t that “CHILL” future appropriate pursuits of information on crooks?!??!
Revisionist present?
Let him sue. The discovery phase of the whole procedure should be interesting.