This isn’t about libel but about a deliberate materially false statement which would have the natural effect of influencing people in a matter of federal jurisdiction. From what is stated in the CRS Report for Congress at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , it doesn’t seem that it has to be a statement given to a federal entity, and it doesn’t have to be proven that the false statement actually DID impact the decision-maker.
The decisions which could be impacted include the things I mentioned in the original post - stuff that’s going on even now, like Lt Col Lakin’s court-martial, a requested investigation by the House Committee on Military Affairs, etc.
And this isn’t about a mistaken report or allegations that end up being wrong. This is when somebody KNOWS they are saying something false and they say it anyway, on a matter with federal significance.
Here, I’ll C&P how this CRS Report describes this:
A matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal entity when it involves a matter “confided to the authority of a federal agency or department . . . A department or agency has jurisdiction, in this sense, when it has power to exercise authority in a particular situation. Understood in this way, the phrase ‘within the jurisdiction’ merely differentiates the official, authorized functions of an agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body.”
Several courts have held that the phrase contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private entities but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations. Subsection 1001(b) precludes application of prohibitions in Section 1001(a) to the statements, omissions, or documentation presented to the court by a party in judicial proceedings. This includes statements of indigency filed by a defendant seeking the appoint of counsel, or by a defendant for a probation officer’s presentence report; but not statements made by one on supervised release to a parole officer.
Although the offense can only be committed “knowingly and willfully,” the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a “matter within the jurisdiction” of a federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase “knowingly and willfully” refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., “that the defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity.”
Prosecution for a violation of Section 1001 requires proof of materiality, as does conviction for perjury, and the standard is the same: the statement must have a “natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” There is no need to show that the decision maker was in fact diverted or influenced.
Conviction for false statements or false documentation under Section 1001 also requires that the statements or documentation be false, that they not be true. And
the same can be said of the response to a question that is so fundamentally ambiguous that the defendant’s answer cannot be said to be knowingly false.
On the other hand, unlike the perjury provision of Section 1623, “there is no safe harbor for recantation or correction of a prior false statement that violates Section 1001.”
Prosecutions under subsection 1001(a)(1) for concealment, rather than false statement or false documentation, must also prove the existence of duty or legal obligation not to conceal.
You have to make a huge stretch, as I said, to support any claim there is a 'atural effect' from this particular story, especially against a member of the media. As I pointed out, other than libel, it's rare that the media would be held accountable by the government UNLESS they can make a direct connection. One example that might come to mind is the Libby-Plame controversy when a reporter was held for contempt for not revealing sources for allegedly outing Valeri Plame. This about the only way other than libel, that a court might step in. The press is otherwsie very much protected from government interference.
Here, I’ll C&P how this CRS Report describes this:
I've been reading through this and I still think there would be a huge stretch to apply any of this to the Hutch News or any other specific media source. How does their claim affect federal funding or regulations? How did they confide to an authority of a federal agency or department?? Which decisionmaking body was influenced by the Hutch News story?? At best, such a story would only be tracked by Kansas senators or representatives. It's doubtful any would cite this particular story as influencing their feelings about how they think Obama is legit. I certainly doubt that it could be tied to any of the military who are trying to prosecute LTC Lakin either.