3 ms·
> Even Attorney General Eric Holder got involved in the government’s obstruction of discovery in the case, signing what appears to have been a perjured affidavi
by mabbo 8y ago
> Even Attorney General Eric Holder got involved in the government’s obstruction of discovery in the case, signing what appears to have been a perjured affidavit falsely claiming that he had personal knowledge that disclosing the status or reasons for Dr. Ibrahim’s blacklisting (i.e. the fact that an FBI agent had made a mistake), “could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to the national security.”
The attorney general, knowing full well that the entire case was based on the government screwing up, perjures himself by claiming that letting anyone know why this happened would cause harm to national security. This is the danger of secrecy in law. When you can claim something must be kept secret with no burden of proof, you let government's hide embarrassments.
- zaroth 8y agoThis is bad, and there should be more serious repercussions against government agents who lie under oath in the course of a cover-up. This though pales in comparison to what’s happening in the Concord Manangement trial (Mueller v Internet Trolls) with secret evidence presented to the judge ex parte.
- rayiner 8y agoYeah, there is no way that counts as perjury. The question asks for a legal conclusion, not a fact, and for good reasons we make it very hard for anyone to call perjury in strained conclusions. In a real case, you wouldn’t just have to admit “oops an agent screwed up.” You’d have to give some sort of contextual information about the process the agent was supposed to be following, and how he deviated. There is a colorable argument that this could result in some disclosure of importance to national security. Just because it’s a stupid argument and the judge didn’t buy it doesn’t mean it’s perjury. The government got the correct sanction here, a finding of “bad faith” and attorneys’ fees, which is what courts do when parties push thin legal arguments further than they should.
- hedora 8y agoSurely this can’t be the proper standard for national security claims. Otherwise, arguments of the form must always be acceptable, and without repercussion: Based on [redacted, even from the judge] the court must make [arbitrary judgment]. That’s giving the exective branch more authority than simply giving them immunity from perjury would!
- cheez 8y agoThis, right here, is why it is very important to keep unilateral powers away from government by any means necessary. The idea that government, made of people, is going to operate in good faith and not cover-your-ass mode is a joke. I've had to deal with numerous similar situations. My saving grace is that I make decent money so I can afford to penalize them.
- gcb0 8y agobut all those Hollywood movies told us that keeping aliens or some other crazy threat from public served well to prevent mass panic while the good guys did the needful to save the day!
- FiveSquared25 8y agoSecret laws are bad. And besides, how we have a democracy if their are some BS ridden from the public eye? And also, the bad guys prebvial after the government fails. If you want a counter example see Half Life series.
- TomMckenny 8y ago>you let government's hide embarrassments And political malfeasance as Nixon showed us. Ultimately to his own downfall. Fortunately.