Federal Agency Refusing to Say Whether Judge Watched Porn on Taxpayers’ Dime
EXCLUSIVE — A federal agency is concealing whether a judge spent time at work browsing pornography after a conservative watchdog group requested the government hand over proof, according to documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.
Robert Lesnick was an administrative law judge from 1979 to 2019 at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, an agency that reviews legal disputes for the Department of Labor. However, in July, the agency’s three commissioners recused themselves from having to release documents that could implicate Lesnick for viewing pornography on taxpayers’ dime, records show.
The American Accountability Foundation, a group probing the Biden administration, sent a Freedom of Information Act request in March for the records after receiving a tip from a government employee about the then-judge’s alleged pornography viewing habits. Lesnick’s habits were detailed in an official evaluation, the government employee told AAF.
META PERMANENTLY BANS PORNHUB AFTER YEARS OF TERMS OF SERVICE BREACHES
Lesnick, however, denied to the Washington Examiner that such an evaluation was in his personnel file.
“If there is any document that purports to make such a claim, it is not an official government document and is fraudulent,” Lesnick said. “As for the remarkable claim you reference from a place I have not worked at in nearly 4 years, there is absolutely no truth to this baseless, malicious lie intended to damage my reputation.”
In May, the commission issued a so-called Glomar denial, telling AAF it can “neither confirm nor deny the existence” of the sought records, documents show. The commission admitted it “located one record” responsive to AAF’s request but claimed it involved “personal privacy protections,” according to emails.
Government agencies can issue Glomar responses when they determine the mere disclosure of whether records exist would reveal otherwise private information. The practice can sometimes be abused, according to Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, an ethics watchdog group.
“If agencies are allowed to interpret certain exemptions to FOIA, specifically those related to personnel matters, too broadly they could effectively prevent the public from holding any officials accountable for misconduct,” Chamberlain told the Washington Examiner.
AAF appealed the agency’s Glomar response in June, claiming there is significant public interest in the sought pornography records being released. But in July, the three commissioners recused themselves from AAF’s appeal, citing a law that says, “In the event that a sitting commissioner is the subject of the disputed FOIA records, that commissioner should be recused from consideration of said appeal.”
AAF Executive Director Tom Jones thinks the agency’s response indicates it is trying to sweep what he sees as Lesnick’s pornography viewing habits “under the rug,” he told the Washington Examiner.
His suspicions are furthered by the fact that AAF filed a
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
