By John Q. Hosedrinker 
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is demanding a criminal investigation into the National Archives after the agency accidentally released an unredacted copy of Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s military record, who is currently running for governor. The National Archives, now under the purview of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has apologized for the error, attributing it to a technician’s mistake when responding to a Freedom of Information Act request. The agency has stated it will provide Sherrill with free credit-monitoring services and review its procedures to prevent future breaches, acknowledging the rarity of such incidents and the importance of safeguarding sensitive information.
Read the original article here
The core issue at hand revolves around a significant security breach at the National Archives, where an “error” led to the exposure of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill’s unredacted military record. This event has sparked a firestorm of controversy, especially given the sensitive nature of military personnel files and the timing of the incident during a tight gubernatorial race in New Jersey.
The immediate reaction to the news is one of disbelief and suspicion. Many find it difficult to accept the explanation of a simple “error” given the rigorous security protocols typically in place at the National Archives. The fact that sensitive information, including Sherrill’s Social Security number, medical records, and addresses, was released to an ally of her Republican opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, fuels these doubts. The release wasn’t just a matter of a few details; it was a complete, unredacted personnel file. This level of access points to a deliberate act rather than a clerical mistake, especially when considering the political context.
The timing of this data leak is highly suspect. With the New Jersey gubernatorial race intensifying, and polls showing a close contest, the sudden appearance of Sherrill’s private information raises questions about political motivations. The release of this data is particularly troubling given the context of the race. Initially, a poll showed Sherrill with a significant lead, but later polls show her race is now tied. The leak could have had a significant impact on voters’ perspectives.
The narrative that the leak was an accident is challenged by the history of the Trump administration, particularly the actions of the then-acting Archivist, Marco Rubio. The assertion is that it was a “Trump flunky” who broke the law. Rubio’s involvement casts a long shadow over the incident. It is implied that the administration has a history of using federal agencies for political purposes.
Further amplifying the controversy is the assertion that the incident was more than a mere administrative oversight. Some comments suggest that the data was not merely leaked; it was weaponized. There’s a belief that the leak was intended to damage Sherrill’s reputation, potentially influencing the outcome of the election. Additionally, the released records were delivered to a known associate of her political rival, cementing the perception of a political hit.
Furthermore, the article points out the complexities involved in obtaining military records. The arduous process, which often involves lengthy delays and antiquated methods, like delivering records on CDs, makes the swift, unredacted release of Sherrill’s information all the more suspicious. The assertion is that if this was an accident, it was a highly improbable one.
Adding to the intrigue is the alleged attempt to smear Sherrill by spreading misinformation. Claims about a “cheating scandal” at the Naval Academy are dismissed as disinformation, underscoring the potential for the leak to be part of a broader smear campaign.
There is also speculation about the motivation behind the leak. Some people propose the administration wanted to damage Sherrill’s campaign and influence the election outcome. This perspective suggests that the leak was part of a broader strategy.
Beyond the immediate damage to Sherrill, the incident raises broader concerns about data security. The potential for a federal agency to expose sensitive personal information undermines public trust in government institutions. The fact that this data could be released at all points to the potential vulnerability of other personnel data, potentially affecting a large number of people.
In the end, the narrative shifts away from the purported “error” and toward the political context in which this event occurred. The comments make it clear that it wasn’t a simple mistake, but rather a deliberate act. The situation has left many questioning whether the National Archives can be trusted with sensitive data or if it has become another tool in the hands of politically motivated actors.