Black said he understood the DOJ had policies about public disclosure, but he wanted to know if the government would join in their motion. From: (USAFLS)< > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:33 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses is an individual's recusal and the basis thereof Privacy Act protected? After discussing with M, I am ok leaving that out. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 3:31 PM To: (USAFLS ; USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses . (USAFLS) (USAFLS) Would the recusal request also be governed by the Privacy Act? While I do not like commenting on the 2008 recusal in a vacuum because of the erroneous inferences to which it could lead, it also seems to me that we might want to say something about why we're not responding to the recusal question. It also seems to me that an individual's recusal and the basis thereof might potentially fall under the Privacy Act. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 03:16 PM To: (USAFLS); USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses (USAFLS) I think we should delete the line "Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal was reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal matters." We simply shouldn't comment on 2008 Alex's recusal. I am comfortable with the rest with one caveat. If (and only if) the Roth letter has in fact been publicly filed, we could send that as well. Make sense? EFTA00206489