DOJ s New Indictment of Whistleblower Eithan Haim Is Even More Outrageous | National Review
DOJ s original indictment propagated the false, but incendiary, notion that Dr. Haim disclosed HIPAA-protected information about pediatric patients and that journalist Christopher Rufo published [that] HIPAA protected information. It further misled the world into thinking that Dr. Haim sneakily obtained access to Texas Children s Hospital s electronic medical patient files more than two years after his work at the hospital had ended. And it alleged that Dr. Haim caused malicious harm to TCH, pediatric patients at TCH and its physicians by contacting Rufo.
DOJ s superseding indictment implicitly concedes the major point that I spelled out in my first post on its persecution of Dr. Haim: Dr. Haim did not disclose HIPAA-protected information to Rufo, and Rufo did not publish HIPAA-protected information.
Paragraph 18 of the original indictment alleged that Rufo ( Person1 ) published HIPAA protected information obtained by Haim. Paragraph 14 of the superseding indictment drops the mistaken claim that the information that Rufo published was HIPAA-protected. It now contends only that Rufo published personal information. That information, I ll emphasize, did not remotely identify the patients, and DOJ has never contended otherwise. As I ve pointed out, DOJ discloses far more revealing information about the patients, as it identifies them by their initials.
Ed Whelan.
This is something I would expect of an underqualified prosecutor from some burgh way out in the country, not the DOJ. I’d ask what is wrong with these people, but we all know what it is.