> listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. This sounds vaguely familiar, b

> listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. This sounds vaguely familiar, but I wasn't able to find it again. Do you happen to have a source for that? Also, even if some less wealthy people were included, that doesn't necessarily mean most Americans are. Whoever leaked it may have included those people knowing ProPublica could vet it. (Also, some politicians are among the very wealthiest Americans.) It also contradicts what they've said elsewhere: >Goodwin: Can you speak a little bit more about what’s in the data? People were curious about how many people were listed and if there’s any discernible criteria for what was included. >Eisinger: You can thumbnail it as the 1% of the 1%. We don’t have waitresses and plumbers, and even doctors and lawyers, we have a thin slice of the wealthiest Americans. [0] This story is less clear-cut than some others they've published, perhaps. But I don't agree that $80 million in trades that may violate ethics policies the person himself established are de minimis. I agree that the whatever security issues may have lead to this information being leaked are also issues, for what it's worth. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-we-reported-the-secret-irs-files https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-w...