Paul:
> ... after such a lengthy retort...
Lengthy, yes -- my apologies to the list -- but not time intensive (and,
hey, it could have been about e-bay....). This is a bit long also. NO
LBC, unless you consider that Max Smart once drove around DC in an LBC.
Maybe.
> questioning all the posts info.....
With all respect, there was nothing reliable contained in that post. I
cannot consider allegations and innuendo to be "information." Indeed, it
was a classic smear tactic. It sounds bad, so it is bad -- even if
unsubstantiated.
> I for one can tell you that this type of info on both the Senate,
> Congress, upper level military personnel serving political roles,
> every page, secretary, and runner for any of the three branches
> of government whether accurate or not.... is published public record.
> I Know! In past consulting roles, I'm one of the people
> who has helped archive it!
Again, I'll have to disagree with you. While I obviously don't know what
you archived, I am reasonably certain that it did not contain any of the
sensitive information discussed, unless part of another public record
(criminal records, for example, may be readily available), or as part of
a background check (which does not necessarily mean that it can be
disclosed. As to the remainder, it seems that the majority are covered
under various sorts of anti-disclosure laws, of which public servants and
military members still benefit from (having worked in an S2 shop, I am
familiar somewhat with these requirements as to the military).
However, let us assume that the information does have a valid source. If
so, it most likely came from a background check. The information in
these is still considered confidential, even if the subject consented to
the check (see, for example, the Right to Privacy Act, or the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act). While the information may have been gathered
and archived, and those archives may be held by a government office, this
does not mean that they are published public records.
Next to the unsubstantiated weasel words (indefinites such as "accused"),
the biggest tip-off for me was the lack of verification. If someone was
going to go through all the trouble to actually gather this information,
isn't it reasonable to expect that they would actually identify the
evil-doers by name?
I, for one, would be very interested to know which one of my elected
representatives is a spouse-beating, liquor-guzzling, dead-beat,
non-creditworthy, drunk driving, who might write me a bad check when he
or she tries to buy my vote.
Heck, if you're gonna count 'em up and sort 'em by category, you'd
probably post the names on a website someplace. With a reference to the
source for the information.
Unless there isn't one.
Don't take my word for it, but I couldn't find anything in the Lexis or
WestLaw news or public records database on the subject. One of our guys
here is Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey is across the river. Since the
information is available as an archived public record, perhaps you could
point me toward a source where I can find the disputed information about
either of these two?
Rich
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
|