SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (447827)1/15/2009 5:34:10 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 1572643
 
It was still a felony, though.

Exactly.

There was no evidence that what the government claimed was true.

There you go, again, with your confused understanding of the American legal system. You see, the fact that he wasn't charged with the other 50 or so counts does NOT mean there was "no evidence". What it means is there was insufficient ADMISSIBLE evidence to insure conviction on a reasonable portion of the charges. In NO WAY does it mean or even suggest the man was innocent of the charges. The main problem with the evidence is that most of it was restricted rather than classified (I never used the term "top secret", which is a different thing).

The "restricted" classification is well-defined as "material that would cause 'undesirable effects' if publicly available".

You should, of course, be aware that he had flunked multiple lie detector tests. And that we don't really know about evidence that was inadmissible for one reason or another (e.g., we would not know whether there was evidence that CIA intervened and prevented from being brought into the trial).

Bottom line, it was on Richardson's watch that this crap occurred, then occurred again, and the program should have been shut down before it happened in the first place.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext