Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (4722)	10/27/2005 2:01:59 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541498

Fascinating - if that statute were enforced to its full possible meaning, the US government (politicians and civil service) would grind to an absolute halt regardless which party is in power. As it is, I am sure it is only used in cases of financial fraud, misuse of government resources, etc. 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). It would be very interesting to hear the top legal scholars weigh in on whether that clause could be used for impeachment. I saw a reference in one piece to something like that being tossed in with the Nixon impeachment counts that never went to a final vote. But I really don't think the Democrats will go that route when they can leave Bush in office and let his presidency implode around him the way it is now.

To: wonk who wrote (4722)	10/27/2005 2:44:20 PM
From: wonk	Respond to of 541498

misposted

To: wonk who wrote (4722)	10/27/2005 3:00:01 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 541498

Interessting statute. It was amnded in 12/04 to read as you have cited it. Before then, it applied as follows: "Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Thus, it seems to have applied to lying to agencies or departments of the Gov't. I don't think the statute was amended to reach the kinds of things under discussion, but I cannot find legislative history. Because it was designed to deal with frauds on an agency of the US, I suspect it will be interpreted to mean more or less the same thing.