Guys,
Rape, Fraud, Theft, Drunken Driving?
I think the question that Everyone is failing to ask is this:
Do any members of Congress own a British Car?
I want to know if THIS is documented and archived anywhere.
-jjf-
richard.arnold@juno.com wrote:
> 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.
|