Why this matters

One word here: blackmail.

Misbehaving agents are put at risk, and to protect their careers they could be blackmailed, putting those they protect in an unforeseen vulnerability.

I contacted the Secret Service. Agency spokeswoman Cathy L. Milhoan sent me a brief summary of Litman's now-dismissed lawsuit and the judge's rulings in the case. No comment on the activities themselves, though.

I get that there are extraordinary problems in our most sacred protective detail. This in itself is not news. What fascinates me here are the great and courageous lengths Malia Litman went through to bring this out.

She says: "The documents themselves show major corruption in the Secret Service. But to me, the bigger issue, the more offensive thing was the cover-up of the corruption."

Her husband says: "She doesn't let people push her around. In those dark moments when you wonder what you're going to do, she finds a way to push through. She never has self-doubts about the righteousness of her cause."

She explains, "I'm in a unique position that most people don't have. I have a law degree and the financial ability to not work and pay a lawyer. Most Americans don't have this."

She also has guts.

"This was not about a political party or ideology," she says. "It's more about what's wrong with our government. When I see this level of corruption and the waste of taxpayer money, somebody needs to say, 'You're not going to get away with this.' At least I want to make people aware of it."

Let's end on a sour note. The federal Freedom of Information Act is supposed to work by itself. But more and more, government officials force those who request information into costly lawsuits.

Although Litman's requests were delayed, stalled and in some cases, falsely denied, the federal judge in her case is forcing her to pay all legal bills.

With a sigh, her husband says: "What's the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act if the government can stall and delay and push it on people to get the legal risk? And the court doesn't enforce the act by making the government pay for its obstruction?"

Senior U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings ruled that Litman "has not shown she is entitled to an award because she has not shown that her pursuit of records involves a legitimate public benefit."

The judge cites as precedent another case that found "that generally increasing public knowledge about the government is not a legitimate public benefit."

That's about the dumbest idea I ever heard.