• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “The full extent of the charges being prepared against Comey is unclear, but the sources believe that at least one element of the indictment — if it goes forward – will accuse him of lying to Congress during his testimony on September 30, 2020 about whether he authorized a leak of information,” Dilanian tweeted.

    The reporter noted that the five-year statute of limitations on that charge would lapse next Tuesday.

    lol

    What a disgusting joke this administration has made everything.

    • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Don’t know about the US, but in most european places the statute of limitations limits when something can start being prosecuted - i.e., if you were indicted a minute before the statute is up, and the process takes years to complete, it doesn’t prevent the process from continuing.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I know these particular charges are probably bullshit, but I don’t think there should be a statute of limitations for lying to Congress.

      • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Five years seems to be plenty of time to fact-check someone’s testimony. Anything longer than that, and most people simply won’t recall their own words well enough to hold them accountable for them anymore.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Congress has cameras. If you’re lying to Congress about factual things, your memory of the event shouldn’t matter.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          By that logic, there shouldn’t be a statute of limitations beyond 5 years on rape. Is that what you’re saying? (I’m being very over inflammatory)

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I mean, that’s literally a change some states made in response to the Weinstein scandal. If it’s reasonable to assume the truth isn’t going to come out before the statute runs out, I’m definitely in favour of making it longer. It should probably still exist, but 5 years seems very short for serious crimes, especially considering how slow the justice system works.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          The problem is that the DOJ isn’t as independent as people would like it to be, so you basically need a change in administration to hold someone to account, which could take longer than 5 years.

          • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            You can still run investigations in the meantime, though. Republicans are notorious for that. Even when they have no real power to do anything about it, they will investigate all the craziest shit that they can imagine…just to make it look like they’re doing something. Then when they have more control again, they have the option to pull the trigger or not.

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Democrats should definitely take something from that playbook, but there’s been many cases of someone lying in front of Congress and not facing consequences. It happened in the leadup of both Iraq wars, and I don’t think people should just be allowed to get away with stuff like that just because the clock ran out.

              Obviously part of the problem is that Democrats don’t seem to be interested in prosecuting stuff like that in the name of bipartisanship, but that’s how they got where they got now.

              • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                The biggest problem with all this stuff, is trying to prove that the person in question actually “lied” versus “I genuinely believed what I said at the time” versus “Oops, I was obviously mistaken”.

                It’s impossible to know what’s going on in someone else’s mind, so unless you have some kind of date-stamped confession, that clearly contradicts their testimony…you’re never going to get a conviction.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They’re bullshit enough that the previous AG refused to prosecute and got fired for it.

    • bagsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      He’s really doing a good job of QA testing of USA v1. We’ll know what to patch in v2.