[mburbank]

Yeah, I have to admit I'm very curious.

Th coverage is so fucked up at this point (maybe irreversibly so) It's almost impossible to parse out what actrually happened. The only thing that all the reports I've read agree on is he toook documents and some of them have not been returned, and he says they're destroyed, probably.

The things I'd like to track down as being either true or not are-

Did he stuff things in his pants and socks? If so, and someone saw that he did this, why didn't they stop him? The 'sting' aspect of this strikes me as bizarre. I mean, if someone has documents in their socks, you don't need to 'sting' them. You say "Sandy, stop right there." no one puts documenst in their socks by accident.

Did he take every copy of a speciffic document? If he took multiple copies of something, that's way odd, but why?? It's not as if those are the only place the copies are, and it was a fair bet that anything he was looking at had already been seen by the panel. If he removed a singkle document , there's some plausability to the 'by accident' scenario. If he took all the comies, not so much plausability.

I'd like to see a good solid piece of reporting on what's actually known bout the charges and the investigation. A lot of what I've read relies on faux indignant shrieking from the House of Representatives on the one hand, and Sandy's lawyer on the other. I'm sorry, I don't find ewither of those sources reliable.

I'm curious as hell.

BUT, and this is a big but, if you want to vote for a candidate who has never relied on the device of people with questionable ethics or criminal records, you'd need to vote for Ralph Nader.