I think that was just a bit unfair, the accusations made by the person were wayyyy out of line. It alleged outright illegal actions and things that could get people fired for doing nothing but their job. Regardless of her mental state, the issue began to gain steam in the blogosphere and some media outlets were picking up on it and it was threatening to get to a national incident situation (think Bierfeld, etc). The team put together the original video spliced together to refute the accusations, then when there was an uproar about the fact that the video was edited, they released all cameras with a view of her in its entirety. It was simply a defense of the organization against statements that were completely different than what was on the video. The wording of the release was not accusatory, merely explanatory - in other words a textbook factual defense rightly executed against false claims.

If you were accused of beating an old lady with her own pocket book, when all you did was assist her across the street when she stumbled, wouldn't you mount a defense to the best of your abilities?

As for the Acting administrator, I can not presume to speak for her or the direction she is taking the agency, merely my opinions and interpretations.

I have already indicated I would like to see more transparency, but I don't know all the implications of that type of info release or the legal issues involved.