Re:How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers
by tptacek on Sunday May 22, 2016 @04:07PM
(#11750054)
A better way to say "I stopped reading at" on HN is "I wanted to stop reading at". You read the whole comment, or you wouldn't have replied.
What part of what I said do you think is a DOJ lie? Based on things Drake has conceded elsewhere, your claim may be more or less rebuttable. You have to actually make the claim before we can discern that.
Re:How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers
by lawnchair_larry on Sunday May 22, 2016 @04:38PM
(#11750186)
I in fact did stop reading there. Mostly because we have 3 debates going at once, and I can only debunk so many things at a time. When an indictment is cited as a primary source of the facts in favor of contradictory findings in the case that followed, that's an easy short-circuit.
Do you seriously not understand how indictments work? Why would you use them as your source for an account of the events? The whole point of an indictment, which consists entirely of unproven allegations by design, is to throw everything possible at the target and paint the worst possible picture to make your case. It's not a finding of facts and it's not an impartial document.
Lying in an indictment would not be news in any way whatsoever. Not lying in an indictment would be news. But it's not really considered lying.