Buta Biberaj and the Political Weaponization of the Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Office – Against Other Democrats and the Press

Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Buta Biberaj courtesy

by James C. Sherlock

Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney Buta Biberaj (D) has used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the tool that opens up government to citizens, in an attempt to destroy political opponents and intimidate the press.

Ms. Biberaj has admitted to investigating her political rivals using FOIA requests to view correspondences between county officials and local reporters.

George Soros-funded Ms. Biberaj, with subpoena power through her grand juries, has not even alleged a crime.

The requests have come not from her re-election campaign, but her government office.

She was looking for “leaks.” From Democrats. To reporters. For which she is properly under attack. By Democrats. And reporters.

Ms. Biberaj is beyond question guilty of an ethical breach.

But by doing what she admits to having done she may have committed a Class 4 felony.

The FOIAs reportedly targeted Nicole Wittman and Elizabeth Lancaster, both political rivals of Biberaj. Wittman ran against her in 2019.

Ms. Lancaster is Biberaj’s current opponent in the Democratic primary.

You may remember Ms. Lancaster as the attorney for the sexual assault victims at two Loudoun County high schools. And for Scott Smith, the father of one of the victims.

You may remember that Ms. Biberaj prosecuted Mr. Smith personally. For a misdemeanor. For Ms. Biberaj the offense was more than what Virginia statutes outlaw.

For her it was a political crime.

Another Democrat, Loudoun County Supervisor Kristen Umstattd, last month called on Biberaj to return the FOIA expenditures.  

In a letter to Ms. Biberaj, Ms. Umstattd wrote:

the requests, at least, appear to be personal or political, and are not clearly related to your official duties as Commonwealth’s Attorney.

I would request that you reimburse, from non-governmental funds, the County and Commonwealth for any County or State resources, including staff time, that you used in preparing and transmitting those personal/political requests from your government office.

Leesburg’s Ms. Umstattd told a reporter from TV station WJLA that one of the FOIA requests sought communication between the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and local reporters.

She [Biberaj] was going after you, after Lindsay Watts, a reporter with Loudoun Now and a reporter who covers schools for the Loudoun Times Mirror.

So, I don’t know what her thinking was in going after a school’s reporter in this particular FOIA request. Lindsay Watts had been a thorn in her side, you have been a thorn in her side. The other reporter for Loudoun Now, I’m not so sure about, but she seems to be looking for any communications between members of the board [of Supervisors] and that group of reporters.

In February, this from Ms. Biberaj

“FOX 5 has learned Biberaj wants the Board of Supervisors to provide her with details about any communication they’ve had regarding the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office with her current and former political opponents as well as journalists who have done hard-hitting reports about her.”

“If you look at those FOIA requests, it’s FOIA for the truth,” Biberaj said. “There have been leaks from the Board of Supervisors for the last three years, and they’ve also made the determinations that they have facts they’ve never shared, data that they’ve never shared. Now I think the people of Loudoun County think they need to understand what is the information they’re relying on.”

Last week, Biberaj filed four different requests for information. She wants to see all documents between June 2019 to present day where the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors had conversations about her office with reporters as well as past and current political opponents.

In March more from Ms. Biberaj:

“The FOIA requests for Nicole Wittmann’s communication with the Board and Elizabeth Lancaster’s communication with the Board, do you consider that county business or political?” Minock asked Biberaj.

“It’s all related to the running of the office,” Biberaj responded. “My understanding is that those conversations were discussing things that were areas that needed to be improved in our office. That’s always doing the county’s business.”

Bottom line.

She was looking for “leaks.”

Ms. Biberaj never mentioned what if any law if any she thought may have been broken.

If she had one in mind, her grand jury could have gone after the records.

Code of Virginia § 18.2-112.1. Misuse of public assets; penalty,

B. Any full-time officer, agent, or employee of the Commonwealth, or of any city, town, county, or any other political subdivision who, without lawful authorization, uses or permits the use of public assets for private or personal purposes unrelated to the duties and office of the accused or any other legitimate government interest when the value of such use exceeds $1,000 in any 12-month period, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

Ms. Biberaj has denied that she has violated § 18.2-112.1.

She has neglected so far to mention what purpose related to her office or “any other legitimate government interest” may have been involved in the FOIA request.

The government using FOIA against government is at least unintended by the authors of the act.

Moreover, the Virginia FOIA act states as policy:

This chapter shall not be construed to discourage the free discussion by government officials or employees of public matters with the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Yet Ms. Biberaj says she was looking for “leaks.”

Now Loudoun citizens are left to wonder what government agency will investigate potential felony misuse of public assets by Ms. Buberaj and members of her office.

And, if the evidence points to violations, who will prosecute .

Updated April 6 to quote Ms. Biberaj more extensively.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “Buta Biberaj and the Political Weaponization of the Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Office – Against Other Democrats and the Press”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This woman obviously needs a political adviser. There would not be anything wrong with Biberaj, the candidate, or someone from her campaign committee, submitting FOIA requests for correspondence. After all, her political opponents have that right and ability. But, she should not have done it in her role as Commonwealth’s attorney.

    Two more political mistakes: 1. going after reporters (they have the power of the pen) and 2. going after members of the Board of Supervisors, including those of her own party. That is just going to alienate the folks you need.

    As for the felony charge, I would be utterly surprised if the value of the staff time involved in sending the FOIA request exceeded $1,000.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I know that the quotes were something like $10,000 and $19,000. I don’t know what was paid.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The costs of complying with the request would be applicable to such a request if it came from that office or from her campaign. So, if it is considered misuse of “public assets” for her to use staff in her office to prepare and file the FOIA, then only the costs of the staff in that office should be counted.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Why just her staff? The other people working on responding to the request were also public employees, paid with taxpayer dollars. And where did the money to pay the costs of responding come from?

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      “Needs a political advisor”?

      No, she needs ethics.

      In the absence of ethics, the lack of which which she has now demonstrated, she appears to need an attorney.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Personally, it’s refreshing.

    4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      “Needs a political advisor”?

      No, she needs ethics.

      In the absence of ethics, the lack of which which she has now demonstrated, she appears to need an attorney.

    5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      “Needs a political advisor”?

      No, she needs ethics.

      In the absence of ethics, the lack of which which she has now demonstrated, she appears to need an attorney.

  2. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    Weaponization of FOIA is not just the purview of Democrats. Plenty of conservatives use it for their own political ends.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      A “whataboutism” that is utterly without evidence. And Nancy gave you a thumbs up.

      Point me to a conservative that has used government staffers to file FOIA requests seeking conversations between political opponents and reporters.

      I’ll wait.

      Then realize that all she would have had to do was use campaign staff for the task to avoid breaking the law.

      Not very smart.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        So you don’t deny that conservatives have weaponized FOIA. Do you really want examples of that? There are plenty. You’re more concerned that the request came from her govt. office rather than the reelection campaign, even though the content requested would have been identical. So if it had come from her election campaign, this is a non-story. Fine, slap on the wrist. Interesting that you’re also concerned about whataboutism. You guys never engage in that here….nope.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I guess that is where you and I part ways ethically. Yes, she could have legally obtained the same information by making a request privately through her reelection campaign instead of her public office. But she did not do that. She obtained the information in an unethical, if not illegal, manner spending public funds – taxpayer money – instead of her own. And that, in my opinion, should be penalized with more than just a “slap on the wrist”.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Yeah, I get that. And you’re right, it’s not good to make light of that. She should be reprimanded and reimburse the state for the cost. I think chances are that it’ll be a slap on the wrist b/c so little actual state $$ was spent. But yes, ethical lapse for sure.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Thank you.

            I guess a lot depends on exactly how many tax dollars were spent both preparing the request, and responding to it. Because if she misappropriated public funds by paying the costs for her staff to prepare the FOIA request, and also used state funds to pay the costs for state employees to prepare the response, then she effectively “double-misappropriated ” public funds.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            Thank you.

            I guess a lot depends on exactly how many tax dollars were spent both preparing the request, and responding to it. Because if she misappropriated public funds by paying the costs for her staff to prepare the FOIA request, and also used state funds to pay the costs for state employees to prepare the response, then she effectively “double-misappropriated ” public funds.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Think you’ve got it.

            The essence of FOIA is that communications/actions of public officials are public and are available to the people of the Commonwealth. There can be nothing wrong with a FOIA request for that information.

            There is, however, something very wrong with a public official using his/her office to further personal interests. That is the issue, FOIA is incidental.

            Is there more than inference that her intent was personal rather than doing her job? I’m not doubting that her actions were improper, just asking what is on the record.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            What is on the record is that after she used her office staff to do the legwork, she wrote a personal check to pay for for some of the FOIA responses.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          The “so you don’t deny” ploy does you no honor. There are an infinite number of things neither of us denies.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Well, I’m glad you found it worthwhile to point out this ethical lapse by this “Soros-backed” DA, through sources for which seem awful thin, on the same day that the news about Harlan Crow-backed Justice Clarence Thomas’ own ethical lapses broke. I await your story about that particular VA resident…

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            The source is VPAP, which compiles and publishes campaign finance reports. Hardly thin.

            As for Justice Thomas, he can defend himself, not my job, and his is not a Virginia story.

            And he did nothing that broke any law.

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            The source is VPAP, which compiles and publishes campaign finance reports. Hardly thin.

            As for Justice Thomas, he can defend himself, not my job, and his is not a Virginia story.

            And he did nothing that broke any law.

          4. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            I know VPAP, but no one else apart from a local Fox affiliate is reporting anything about this. Which means you either have a scoop or a non-story. As for Thomas, he’s a Virginia resident, his kid went to VMI, and his wife is active in VA politics and directly lobbied the VA Senate to confirm Youngkin’s recent round of appointees. I would call that a “Virginia story.” As for his actions not being illegal, I don’t think we quite know that yet. But even if not, his actions have far more long-lasting and, IMO, egregious effects on his judicial decisions, the institution of the SCOTUS, and American society than some small-bore DA’s race is NOVA, i.e. this a big story, not Buta’s FOIA abuse.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Off topic. The question is the filing FOIA requests for political purpose using her office (and taxpayer money). If conservative politicians have done that, they are wrong too.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        Sure, that’s a question, a narrow one, but one that deserves some attention. But the larger purported question is ethics among public officials. Does anyone believe that the author is concerned about ethical lapses among anyone but Democrats? Please, this is about the “Soros-funded” DA and nothing more.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    You do know what the George Soros signaling is all about, right?

    So long as the information is obtained through FOIA, and not through her use of offical channels, then it is readily available to the public and can be disclosed to the public, i.e., Freedom Of Information.

    She’s doing her public library research. She is allowed, as is anyone, to scour public records for information. If she stumbles on evidence criminal behavior while reading the NYT, or WaPo, then it’s admissible.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maryland-ag-documents-widespread-sexual-abuse-least-600-victims-baltim-rcna78378

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I chose to ignore the George Soros signaling.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Read my response to Nancy.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, it WAS a personal attack. Thank you for cleaning it up.

          There, now don’t we all feel just a little bit better?

          I know I do.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The very thing you shouldn’t ignore, albeit your statement is a mild admonishing (nouning intentional as was the verbing), it’s too mild.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Library research for evidence of a crime, or for evidence of a political problem?

      You’re changed the subject by attacking a single sentence.

      Her campaign has received $1,297,835 in Contributions Received Since 2018. Of that, donations of Soros’ Justice and Public Safety PAC were $861,039.

      See https://www.vpap.org/committees/325342/biberaj-for-loudoun-county-commonwealth-attorney-buta/

      This is a Democrats Vs. Democrat story. Democrats plural in this story are honorable people.

      Democrat singular, Ms. Buberaj, is very arguably a criminal for what she did.

      The subject is not changed.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s an example of a public source of public information. Wow! Pretty much the same thing as a FOIA request. Kinda like the National Archives. A repository of government (not President) owned documents.

        DvD? And you’re complaining? Sounds like a personal problem to me.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Library research for evidence of a crime, or for evidence of a political problem?

      You’re changed the subject by attacking a single sentence.

      Her campaign has received $1,297,835 in Contributions Received Since 2018. Of that, donations of Soros’ Justice and Public Safety PAC were $861,039.

      See https://www.vpap.org/committees/325342/biberaj-for-loudoun-county-commonwealth-attorney-buta/

      This is a Democrats Vs. Democrat story. Democrats plural in this story are honorable people.

      Democrat singular, Ms. Buberaj, is very arguably a criminal for what she did.

      The subject is not changed.

    4. WayneS Avatar

      Using public funds to do opposition research.

      Where have I heard that before.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        There are legal distinctions between whistleblowers and leakers that afford protection for one and retribution for the other. Now eventually, maybe we’ll be able to distinguish one from the other.

    5. Nathan Avatar

      “You do know what the George Soros signaling is all about, right?”

      No, I don’t. Please enlighten me.

      Are you saying that if someone happens to be Jewish, that person is immune from criticism? Does this apply to everyone?

    6. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Signaling? Spare me. Soros is very clear that he uses his money to push his personal philosophy on justice reform. He clearly states that he intends to continue doing this. This is in the public domain using words spoken by Soros himself.

      The only thing being signaled is that a single billionaire uses his money to heavily influence elections for district attorney in order to have his soft-on-crime attorneys general bastardize prosecutorial discretion to implement one man’s views.

      https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/

    7. CJBova Avatar

      Nancy Naive: Posting where you will see this. Wiki is not a guaranteed source of accurate information. It is crowd-sourced and subject to false claims. If you choose to use false info to go after anyone on this blog, you’ll get a one-month ban.

      1. CJBova Avatar

        Posting a 9-year old article about conspiracies is not the subject at hand nor does it excuse your comments. Not acceptable. One week suspension.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I see one major advantage of being a certain level of commenter is that you can launch a personal attack, and when (if) it gets deleted, you can edit the juicy parts and reinstate the post. Wish we all had that opportunity. Ya know, “flagged” as opposed to out-in-out “deleted”. Sure would improve the threading.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      “flagged” as opposed to out-in-out “deleted”…

      I think that is a good idea. I wonder if disqus offers that feature.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well for all, maybe, maybe not. But the offending member had been removed, and was subsequently replaced, so for certain of us, yes.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Disqus does offer a flag for review by the moderator. That comment will be collapsed and marked as awaiting moderation.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “ The requests have come not from her re-election campaign, but her government office.”

    I’m sure you have evidence for this, right?

    As for the costs of meeting the FOIA request, ain’t that a BR bone of contention? FOIA costs being inflated or simply prohibitory is oft cited in these pages.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I updated the article to provide the evidence you seek in more detail.

      See the extended quotes from Ms. Biberaj for the evidence you request.

      As for the costs, BR does not use government personnel to file our FOIA requests.

      That is misuse of the office, not according to me, but according to the Democratic officeholders and reporters whose conversations she seeks.

      If you still think what she admits to having done is correct, have a nice day.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, of course the reporters will think so. Bread and butter.

        But as I told Wayne, there are legal distinctions between leaks and whistleblowers.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          They quoted her. After the publicity, she wrote a personal check for at least one of the FOIA charges.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, good for her. She clearly recognized that her FOIA equivalent of a super yacht vacation in the South Pacific was an error.

  6. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    I’ve known Kristen Umstattd for a number of years. She’s a pretty level headed and reasonable person irrespective of her views on a specific issue.

    This has a flavor of Tricky Dick and his enemies list.

  7. WayneS Avatar

    She said “It’s all related to the running of the office,” , but she meant “It’s all related to running for office”….

    😉

  8. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    James, do you have any source for this article other than a report from Fox5 in DC? I’ve been Googling and can’t find anything else.

Leave a Reply