United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ut does not say they were the only ones. 9 Further, the national-regional
distinction is immaterial, both for the AJ’s perspective (information is SSI if it
refers to any flights) and MacLean’s (SSI means referring to specific flights). The
AJ did not question MacLean at hearing to probe about this contrived
contradiction. It bears no weight on whether he had good faith about lack of
restrictions on disclosing mass cancelation. To him it was meaningless.
4. MacLean both could be frustrated and respond lawfully to
FAMS’ mistake.
This is again a false contradiction. Undisputedly MacLean was frustrated
that FAMS was abandoning the flying public during a terrorist alert. But there is no
citation that he went the next step and decided the end justified the means,
including an illegal 2003 disclosure. The Board did not address MacLean’s
protests that he could act lawfully and be frustrated simultaneously.
9 Although the Board rejected admission of the transcript as immaterial, it is
dispositive with respect to rebut this credibility attack. MacLean proffers that it
demonstrates the subject did not come up in the interview. ICE/OPR investigators
drafted the statement on that point from news articles MacLean left with them,
which did not reference location. A124, 135.
40