Void the Non-Disclosure Agreements That Conceal Congressional Misconduct
They serve no legitimate purpose and function to protect wrongdoers.
..But this is why the last clause of Tapper’s tweet is the most important: so their survivors can talk if they wish.
There is no legal or policy reason to refrain from legislation that would out the lawmakers involved in misconduct settlements — regardless of the type of misconduct (I wouldn’t limit it to sexual episodes).
to the extent that these existing non-disclosure arrangements guarantee confidentiality, it ought to be up to the victim whether or not to remain anonymous.
.. I also thought complaints about the shroud under which the Trans-Pacific trade pact was being negotiated were bogus. If agreements could not be negotiated confidentially, many if not most of them would not happen. As long as the final agreement is available to be examined, there is no public “right to know” the negotiating positions of governments.
.. Private citizens do not get to withhold information from the government on the ground that it was provided under a non-disclosure agreement.
.. So why should the government, in a matter not involving national security or public safety, be able to withhold information about the actions of public officials from the public those officials like to tell us they “serve”?
.. Specifically, the FBI had evidence of crimes by Rosatom’s American subsidiary, the timely disclosure of which would have made it politically impossible for the Obama administration to approve Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One’s U.S. uranium-mining rights. Yet when Congress sought to look into this matter, it emerged that government’s informant witness had been induced by the FBI and Justice Department to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Reportedly, he was threatened with retaliation under this NDA if he shared what he knew with congressional committees.
.. Secrecy in government has its place — a very important place when it comes to intelligence that keeps the nation safe and promotes the rule of law. But the need for secrecy in some government operations is the smokescreen under which public officials often conceal government behavior that is embarrassing, incompetent, corrupt, reckless, dangerous, illegal, or even criminal. Particularly when a matter is outside the realm of national security or law enforcement, and when it involves the behavior of public officials, there should be a strong presumption against confidentiality.