The key is "knowingly and willfully". It's like the standard for journalistic libel, which requires knowledge of the falsehood and deliberate malice. Politicians can always say hey, I was wrong, sorry, but I thought I was right at the time. You need documentary or testamentary proof that there was knowledge of falsehood (like the stock analyst E-mails that sank those guys).
Yes, I would agree. The knowingly and willfully is the key.
And this is the exact issue that underlies WHY the Administration may have gone after Wilson so strenuously.
Putting aside whether the Code Section applies to the SOTU, we still have an affirmative statement that “the British government has learned…” Certainly the Administration can argue – and have argued – that the statement was true in the abstract. However, if the Administration had information that – notwithstanding the fact that the British Government believed it – the information was false, then communicating in such a manner without the caveat it becomes under (a)(2) a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. It is not the statement per se that is false, but the representation. I defer to the lawyers, but I think the common law is quite clear on 'intent to deceive.'
This is not an issue of the criminalization of politics. Rather it is the foundation principle of communications between knowledge gatherers and decision makers. The Executive implements the law, Congress makes them. The Executive reports to the Congress their findings and recommendations – Congress decides. The Congress may make bad decisions - but its still their decision, and responsibility.
To falsify or not disclose material information on which to base a decision is to usurp Congress’ power and authority.
To usurp someone else authority is unacceptable in business, its unacceptable everywhere. In civil affairs it’s a tort and could rise to the level of criminal fraud. If, for example, I’m your investment advisor – and have just seen on the wire that one of your portfolio companies has been halted - and you ask me “what do I think about this company today” and I say to you – “Oh all the analysts’ reports are still glowing and they expect to report strong earnings…” I’ve concealed material facts that could affect your investment decision. When you lose a ton of money, you will sue me - and win.
ww
now its time to return to income generating pursuits.... |
