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.
Roger Ailes opts for secrecy, cowardice in face of Gretchen Carlson suit
Fox News management made a sound decision in choosing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as its agent of choice.According to a 2011 study by Cornell University’s Alexander Colvin, employees prevail less frequently and recover less money in cases arbitrated by the AAA — the study examined nearly 4,000 cases between 2003 and 2007 — than they do in trials.
.. Paul Bland, an expert on arbitration clauses and executive director of Public Justice, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that as a general rule, only the parties to an arbitration clause can invoke it. After reading the court documents filed by Carlson’s lawyers, Bland noted that the agreement is between Fox News and Carlson. “Ailes is not named in it. Their argument is that FOX means Ailes. They should have written more broadly, most arbitration clauses name others who work for or with, are associated with, etc. I consider him a non-party under this language. Poor drafting,” writes Bland in an email.
.. “The problems of secrecy in arbitration are really highlighted in this case — you look at all of the women who have come forward with very similar stories, and you can see why Ailes would prefer to keep a lid on all of this by avoiding the public court system where the evidence becomes a matter of public record.”
.. Another thing to consider is that Carlson worked at Fox News for 11 years, presiding in some way over thousands of hours of programming. Over all those hours, Carlson was adjudged reliable and honest enough such that Ailes and his lieutenants placed their precious Fox News audience in her hands. Now, all of the sudden, she has become the source for her lawyers’ dissemination of “one false and defamatory statement after another.” Even you, Roger Ailes, can’t have it both ways.
House of Secrets: Who owns London’s most expensive mansion?
A recent investigation by the Financial Times found that more than a hundred billion pounds’ worth of real estate in England and Wales is owned by offshore companies. London properties account for two-thirds of that amount. Charles Moore, a former editor of the Telegraph, says that London’s property market has become “a form of legalized international money laundering.”
.. Witanhurst has always been an attractive place to park new money.
.. In recent years, more than seventy per cent of newly built properties in central London have been bought by foreign investors—often for cash.
.. I observed that there was a vogue for digging out enormous basements beneath London properties—creating so-called “iceberg houses”—and asked him if he approved.
.. Litvinenko is the rector of St. Petersburg Mining Institute, the small university where Putin acquired his Ph.D.—with a thesis later found to have been heavily plagiarized. Both Andrey Guryev and his son, Andrey Guryev, Jr., who is now the C.E.O. of PhosAgro, also received degrees there.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Nears Approval (May 2015): What details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are secret?
But you know how government works – they say it’s secret, so they won’t discuss it even if it’s printed on the front page of the New York Times. Your congresscritter may be permitted to read it, but he can’t take an assistant in to read it with him, nor is he allowed to take notes, nor is he allowed to tell anyone else what he read, so he’s pretty much powerless to object to any specific item in it. Even if he was not, the Fast Track bill was intended to move the whole thing through so quickly that nobody had a chance to debate it and raise any amendments.