Posted on Oct 17, 2016
Former general pleads guilty in Stuxnet leak case
5.28K
18
9
8
8
0
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
The actual charge is for "Making false statements" as opposed for being the one who leaked the information. In other words "hampering an investigation" or "perjury" depending on when he did it.
This can get really complex really quickly because the charge boils down to "He lied" but not necessarily under oath, OR "there is enough evidence" that he told a statement which could be construed as lying (withholding information would still qualify).
This is obviously a plea deal, as they are doing it in Federal Court as opposed to Military (not going after his Retirement). It changes the context of the "crime" which is not actually established in the article.
One of the big issues he could run into if they decided to go the UCMJ route is being recalled as a 2 star (he's not going to wear all 4 stars because of billet allocations), and he's going to get paid significantly less than he's making now. They can force him into a deal. Better to make $0 for 6 months, than general pay for 2 years without his other income.
This can get really complex really quickly because the charge boils down to "He lied" but not necessarily under oath, OR "there is enough evidence" that he told a statement which could be construed as lying (withholding information would still qualify).
This is obviously a plea deal, as they are doing it in Federal Court as opposed to Military (not going after his Retirement). It changes the context of the "crime" which is not actually established in the article.
One of the big issues he could run into if they decided to go the UCMJ route is being recalled as a 2 star (he's not going to wear all 4 stars because of billet allocations), and he's going to get paid significantly less than he's making now. They can force him into a deal. Better to make $0 for 6 months, than general pay for 2 years without his other income.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next