Comments on: Nickles Refuses Subpoena on Wiggins Firing

By: mike

mike — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:54:31 +0000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903679.html

By: mike

mike — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:36:24 +0000

Is the disclosure of documents in Council investigation process privileged too? I imagined so.
if so, DC government will not be subject to defamation liability, as long as the Government officials( employer ) do not make premature comments about Ms Wiggins to media, like in clampitt's case.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:22:36 +0000

Mr. Nickles's letter citing Clampitt v. American University case to assert the necessity not to disclose the documents, his reason is once it is diclosed , it might subject the government to liability for defamation.
One thing I have difficulty to understand Mr. Nickle's reasoning in his letter, with all due respect:
If the decision of the DC Government in firing Wiggins is correct, even if the files are disclosed, there shall be no cause for Wiggins to sue the government for defamation.
If the government's decision is wrong, there might be cause for Wiggins to sue the government---if the government is wrong in making the firing decision, why they shall not be subject to liability? Either defamation, or any other type of liability?