Another old answered story rehashed - UPDATED

Update 5/30: there is an article in the print-only Washington Jewish Week on this subject. I've made a major re-write to focus on the points of interest and remove misinformation based on the faulty reprint at BVBL.

The version BVBL had when I captured it was apparently re-typed, and introduced most of the errors I caught. My suspicion was reasonable given BVBL's lack of a source and the typos that BVBL had written it, but he just copied it poorly.

Of course, because I worked from the bad version BVBL had, it led me to bad assumptions. While those were the result of the BVBL version's errors, I should have waited to confirm the language of the actual article. So while I was right that the version at BVBL was not an original newspaper article, as everybody now knows, I was still "wrong" because there was a real original, it's just not the one that appeared at BVBL.

==================================
BVBL has taken to posting unsourced "newspaper articles" provided with no date, faxed to him by unnamed people, purporting to be written by a famous lawyer, which BVBL admits can't be accessed online, but which mention the current race for the 51st convention, and remarkably says almost word for word stuff written AT BVBL the past two months.

Now, it is possible that all of this is really true. With BVBL, you just never know, once in a while there are true things posted. In fact, I have a call into the lawyer in question, so we should know in no time what the truth of the matter is. (Update 5/30: I received confirmation, but BVBL's version has errors not in the real article).

I won't say much more tonight, except to summarize three things:

1. the argument made is derivative and specious. There's nothing new.
2. Update: It was in Washington Jewish Week, but not yet the online edition. I hadn't thought of who the author's target audience was, and assumed it would be the convention delegates. I was wrong.
3. The article repeats the disproven charges of error by Gill in his disclosures. I researched and and took the time to write at least two comments covering aspects of this which I posted over at BVBL. Those comments were deleted. But the facts are that Faisal Gill had a high-security clearance, was fully qualified to have that clearance, fully disclosed as required by law ALL of his associations, and was cleared after an investigation of EXACTLY the concerns raised by the "two senators". See "Faisal Gill Qualfied for This Position".

The article contains some really good stuff that is true:

On the surface, Gill is about what one would expect from a GOP candidate. Conservative on all big issues, lawyer, Navy JAG Corps. Gill even has the requisite Washingtonesque government job history, a former director of intelligence policy for the Department of Homeland Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate. Surely a man with extremist affiliations would not hold such a sensitive job?

It could have stopped there. It's right about Gill's qualification, and it is absolutely right that a man with "extremist affiliations" would not hold that job. And in fact, the investigators made that clear in their report. Gill was completely investigated and was found to be MORE than qualified for the position.

We must remember that accusation by the government does not equal guilt, and even terrorists deserve legal representation. Lawyers who step up to represent unpopular defendants deserve praise for helping our system function.

That is surely true. Not just about lawyers, but about so much else.