A few points about this piece:

* The information isn't independently verifiable, since none of the people referenced is identified by name. (Why bother to conduct all that research but then not mention any names? One plausible answer is that doing so heads off libel lawsuits if the information proved to be inaccurate or false.)

* The original article is now several years old (having been published in 1999) and even when first published didn't list any names or state when its information was collected, so there's no telling how many of the people referenced might still be in Congress.

* The list is long on vague innuendo and woefully short of hard facts. It describes members of Congress who have supposedly been "arrested," "accused," or "defendants," but doesn't mention a single case (anonymous or otherwise) of any of them having been convicted (or even tried) on criminal charges, no matter how minor, or of having been found liable in a civil lawsuit. We're told that "117 members of the House and Senate have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt, often leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag," but get no detail about who these members were, the nature of the businesses that failed, why the businesses failed, or who was left "holding the bag" (and for how much). We're also told that "twenty-nine members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings," but find nothing about any of them actually being convicted or ordered to pay civil damages.

* Lacking any specific context, some of these claims border on the silly. "Twenty-one [Congress members] are current defendants in various lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other civil matters." How much significance should we place on such a vague statement in our litigious society, where just about anyone can find himself a defendant in a civil lawsuit over the most frivolous of matters (or nothing at all)? And "seventy-one of them have credit reports so bad they can't get an American Express card"? Based on what — irresponsible overspending, absent-mindedly making a few late credit card payments, or simply being the innocent victim of a credit reporting agency screw-up? Once again, nothing in the original enables the reader to make any such distinction.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

---

This is from 1999 and the article never gives names or specific cases...so this is hardly any sort of fact.

I don't know why more people on here don't use Snopes.

Snopes

Originally posted by die_another_day
www.abovetopsecret.com...