A way to Evaluate The prospective Law Fairly;

My memory may deceive me, but I think I also wrote on this matter as well. The content may have gone un-ferreted away. My electronic rat-pack is occasionally unwieldy and hard to collect according to a single organizational convention - the more conventions, the more entropy - organization fugit:-)

The reason that the difficulty of searching the relevant .PDF is IMPORTANT, is that competitors in the Senate and House may have been mislead that language offensive to their agendas and preferences was totally absent - it may have merely been a part of the un-indexed portion. It's actually easier to tell a computer to index exhaustively than to half-assed do the job; Sen. Nunn isn't out of the woods yet.

If he didn't know, it's a little like Reagan's VP and Iran/Contra - he's damned for incompetence if he didn't know, and he's damned for collusion if he did. It is sufficient to know that the truth was hidden for the evidence to be politically damning.

I'll take a moment to note that I'm personally on board with Ollie in re Contras specifically - we can't let ANYONE emasculate America by casting psoitive mobility of purpose away for temporary political gain; We need our Military element of surprise.

The document itself needs to be evaluated by a team of individuals who communicate well; they'll have their best chances for efficient speed if both sides are forthcoming about their preferences. Points in the Report prepared for POTUS 44 should agree throughout. A good outline should do it; the table of contents would be helpful, but making your own outline, and then going back to compare is more reliable. I've had time enough to do it since Christmas last year, but truly "The urgent exercises tyranny over the important" - some of the stuff I've been into since then has even been important on it's own.

Once you have an outline, you ask if the Report is artful political double talk, or somebody did the heavy lifting and developed a conclusion. Then you use detectives and blackmail to find the relevant drawer we imagine is there somewhere, and compare the contents to the Report: It's no good to say "We didn't know about the report we made up our OWN Law..." The report has been "in the works" since 1999. Please lend your voice to mine if you have not yet written the House Committee on Unamerican Activities (Washington 20007.) Be substantive if possible.

NO ONE is EVER satisfied one hundred percent with any law at the time. History mellows our perceptions of them, and tests them for their merits. In fact no law can POSSIBLY satisfy all constituencies, so the final test of the language of the anticipated item will give important attention to fairness:

The Law itself should be written according to the agreed upon outline that best describes the report. No one writing the (potentially) Self-Consistent Non-double-talk oriented in-the-public-interest Report could single handed direct its language and outcome. The truth has it's way even with Politicians, and these were public servants. When the Report has been rendered substantive and self-consistent, a law that fulfills the requirements above would certifiably be worthy of Washington's attention. I'm not in favor of letting them off the hook. Make them admit defeat by failing passage if necessary. The system works, just not the way we WANT it to!