Right, and so you admit that in the story cited, that the Hutch News definitely got the facts wrong.
The editor admitted outright that he got the facts wrong, but he refused to correct it.
The way he would have corrected it would have also been wrong, which I also tried to tell him but he wouldn’t listen.
It’s hard work getting to the bottom of a story and finding what the actual truth is. I know that. Along the way there will be misunderstandings and inaccuracies; I’ve had that myself and fully understand that. Everybody would be afraid to say anything if there weren’t allowances for that. Those honest mistakes or unwillingness to dive into deep research into rabbit-holes aren’t what this is about. This is about deliberate falsehood.
And it isn’t falsehood about any old thing either. Dan Rather’s forged Bush memos, for instance, wouldn’t qualify for prosecution under this law because there was no federal entity that would have investigated whether Bush got a sweet deal all those many years ago. That would be more a subject for libel charges. But this is about matters over which the federal government does have jurisdiction.
The thing about this is that the only group exempted from this law is people who are lawfully able to conceal a material fact - defense lawyers, for instance. Congress itself is not exempt.
So if it could be proven that John Murtha knew he was lying when he said our Marines “murdered in cold blood”, then even he could be prosecuted under this law.
If Obama knew the BC put out by his own campaign site was a forgery and concealed that fact, then he can be prosecuted under this law.
If Fukino knew that her carefully-worded statement about Obama’s birth records verifying that he was born in Hawaii was being reported as her saying that SHE verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she failed to correct that when she knows that she can’t legally say what Obama’s birth facts are because his BC has no probative value... I believe she could be prosecuted under this law.
The standard for evidence is high; it has to be proven that the person knew they were lying or concealing. But if they were and their lie or deception would have the natural tendency to influence the decisionmaking in a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government, then the person is responsible for deliberately lying or deceiving. A person who is honestly trying to report what they know has nothing to fear.
Right, and so you admit that in the story cited, that the Hutch News definitely got the facts wrong.
When the Hutch News said that Hawaii’s Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate, they were dead wrong. Hawaii has no Secretary of State and no official in Hawaii has released any birth certificate for Barack Obama.