I am enjoying the fake courtroom questioning scenarios I see here. I especially like that some of you are answering your own questions as someone else.
If I was Curley or Shultz
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
you sign a declaration stating everything you've stated is truthful on the SF-86. any lies are indeed a violation of 18 usc 1001. The person conducting the interview isn't usually an agent, only FBI agents conduct background checks on potential FBI agents. Usually it is a contractor with a previous background in complex investigations. However, any statement other than the truth or even a denial is a false statement and punishable as such due to signing the affirmation of truth.
now an individual lying to an investigator and being prosecuted for it? I've never heard of it happening. I've never even heard of people being prosecuted for lies on their own SF-86. Most people who do get tossed out during the more advanced screening phase for the mistruths and won't be grantd a clearance..ie polygraphs, other interviews...etc
now an individual lying to an investigator and being prosecuted for it? I've never heard of it happening. I've never even heard of people being prosecuted for lies on their own SF-86. Most people who do get tossed out during the more advanced screening phase for the mistruths and won't be grantd a clearance..ie polygraphs, other interviews...etc
Last edited:
With due respect, my experience is that the Sandusky issue has nothing to do with Spanier's ability to hold and safeguard classified information. That is what an investigator to trying to ascertain and confirm. Questions are along the lines of Is this person trustworthy,? Ar they reliable? Do you have any reason to doubt his/her ability to safeguard data? And, so on.
Unless C&S had an immediate flashback and thought, "Hmmm, Graham did make us swear to never tell anyone about Sandusky", would anything like this really come up and be used as a basis for granting or renewing a clearance.
An example: a person may be a horrible driver and rack up speeding ticket after speeding ticket. That only makes them a careless driver. It almost assuredly does not factor in to any clearance decision.
I agree with you on this in general. Except that in this case the security clearance renewal occurred (in 2012) after the Sandusky et al indictments (which occurred in 2011), meaning that this would be something that they would specifically ask about.
Further, the investigator (Snedden) has commented that he is sure there wasn't a cover up, meaning that he must have asked questions that allowed him to reach that conclusion.
This is true. A primary a concern of these to see if there's anything that one could be blackmailed for. Since the Sandusky affair was public knowledge it really isn't such a thing.
But only after it was allegedly covered up for 10 years.That's kind of like saying "well, now that we know Paul Manafort acted as an agent for the Russians and it's public knowledge, we can go ahead and give him a security clearance."
Also, what about Sexfest and C*ntfest that you've been so hopped up in here over for the past few months? Guess the Feds didn't care about those either.
Does anyone really believe that Spanier thought Second Mile only involved High School kids?
In general, I believe I am correct and investigative questions do not traverse off topic very much without cause. There are always unique situations. Spanier's probably straddles a line or runs close to it.
Let's use a different example. Suppose a colleague is cheating on his wife and I know about it. Certainly this is something that my colleague likely wants kept out of the press and from around the water-cooler. Does that make him a security risk? Do I offer or confess this type of information to an investigator? Frankly I probably think that it's none of the investigators business unless I know of additional 'damaging/compromising information' of some sort (such as the mistress is a foreign national or something). In other words, I would probably make my own judgement as to whether I thought this was "material information" or not given what other data points i have.
Anyway, Spanier's situation is probably more clear than a cheating husband. As another poster said, it was very public knowledge what happened in 2011-12 and his role. It was surely no secret.
Totally irrelevant. Curley and Schultz could be interviewed, but they are not compelled to answer any questions that may implicate criminal activity. So to assume that they told all to the investigator is not a given. Secondly, it would be well within their belief that they weren't responsible at that time, so they wouldn't be lying as they felt the passed it in to TSM and probably met the law at the time as explained by W. courtney.
However, they have pleaded guilty so they can no longer claim that they are blameless....even if they might be not be. Before the rationale was all three are innocent because they weren't told anything of consequence, but got shafted when MM enhanced his testimony years after the fact. That might be true, but the juror is not going to infer that if they plead guilty. So the jurors are going to believe, rightly or wrongly, that all three are in the same boat. Well, now Spanier has to explain how he is disconnected enough that C/S hide whatever they are guilty of from him so that he bears no responsibility for their misaction. Claiming they were all in the dark isn't as viable since two have already admitted guilt regardless of whether they were in the dark or conspiring.
Even if they don't testify, the OAG has made impossible for then to testify against them. You don't get to plea and that screw over the prosecution in court. So if that occurs they will either press for a stiff sentence or will void the plea deal and recharge. For a long time, it was C/S/S on an island but united. Now it is Spanier by his lonesome with his two employees saying they were guilty. Whether fair or true, we don't know because they conceded and he is going to be painted as guilty by association and there is nothing that C/S can do to help him because they gave in and cannot deny that. If Spanier's trial goes forward we get more details to the events, but the chances he is convicted went up measurably by C/S pleading. Hint: Thats exactly why the OAG was willing to offer that plea deal because it strengthens their case in a number of ways.
That doesn't make what OAG did good, but they hold the leverage and use it to get what they want which is a conviction. They happily take a plea from Spanier too, but he won't get the same offer now as before. Its like poker and now there are only two at the table.
As long as we're making up testimony here, what if...
Any one of the three were asked "Did anyone at Penn State tell you to remain silent and not pass along the report you received about Jerry Sandusky to the authorities?"
And they respond, "We received several phone calls from the Board of Trustees at the time... Hintz, Junker, Broadhurst... I think Huck and Garban too. They told us Wendell Courtney had called them and said something about an issue with Jerry Sandusky and one of his Second Mile kids. Penn State was in the middle of its largest fundraising campaign ever, and they didn't want any hint of negative publicity that might turn off donors. Mimi Coppersmith personally said 'If you clowns f*ck this up, I'll personally slice off your balls.' "
Ridiculous? Maybe. But not any more than claiming they did it to protect the football program or because they didn't feel like reporting it.
Any one of the three were asked "Did anyone at Penn State tell you to remain silent and not pass along the report you received about Jerry Sandusky to the authorities?"
And they respond, "We received several phone calls from the Board of Trustees at the time... Hintz, Junker, Broadhurst... I think Huck and Garban too. They told us Wendell Courtney had called them and said something about an issue with Jerry Sandusky and one of his Second Mile kids. Penn State was in the middle of its largest fundraising campaign ever, and they didn't want any hint of negative publicity that might turn off donors. Mimi Coppersmith personally said 'If you clowns f*ck this up, I'll personally slice off your balls.' "
Ridiculous? Maybe. But not any more than claiming they did it to protect the football program or because they didn't feel like reporting it.
They absolutely are. They telll you the penalties for lying before they start.
"An example: a person may be a horrible driver and rack up speeding ticket after speeding ticket. That only makes them a careless driver. It almost assuredly does not factor in to any clearance decision."
I knew a guy who lost his clearances due to speeding tickets. The revocation was due to "your reckless disregard for the law of the land"
I knew a guy who lost his clearances due to speeding tickets. The revocation was due to "your reckless disregard for the law of the land"
I'm pretty sure that's already been done.Let's write a Law & Order: SVU episode. "Ripped from the headlines."
Law enforcement and the judiciary don't get to define what's moral or immoral. Unless we're talking about places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea.
Mike has testified how many times:
1. Grand Jury - Sandusky, Curley and Schultz indicted
2. Various Pre trial hearings - Sandusky, Curley and Schultz bound over for trial
3. Sandusky trial - Sandusky convicted on 41 of 44 counts
4. McQueary defamation and wrongful termination civil suit - Mike wins huge
Anybody who believes that Mike will get killed on the stand at this point is delusional.
Reading times article about a conversation Lenny Moore had with Joe Paterno.
Stretches the limits of credibility. Possible. Improbable.
Last edited:
I have a former co-worker who obtained a security clearance. To this day, nobody who knows the guy understands how he passed the background check. I wouldn't put much stock in someone obtaining a security clearance as some sort of proof that they are squeaky clean.
This may be so. I know for a fact that I don't put any stock in what someone says here who has 20 posts and joined 3/9/17.LOL
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Well that would certainly create an interesting twist in the saga.
I still like the well meaning guys blundered badly (after JoePa did the right thing and only failed in trusting others) theory. Can't wait to hear what comes out at trial and end all the theorizing. But that was one heck of a hypo Royal Coaster.
This is a fair point, but was that person currently under indictment for a very public child sex scandal?
I have a friend who worked at a very high level of current (i.e. until recently he would have a dog name Bo in his office) who has a number of interesting things about this personal life that I would think would preclude him from getting clearance. But it did not. So you are right at a macro-scale, but wrong as it pertains to Spanier.
At what number of posts do you gain credibility? Even you had to join this forum at some point.
1. There is no cross examination during a GJ testimony.
2. The is only limited cross during the pre-trial hearings. If you go back and look at the transcripts, the judge allowed almost zero cross of MM.
3. The defense attorneys for the JS trial did a laughably bad job. Again, go back and read the transcripts. The cross examination is a joke.
4. Setting aside for a minute that this trial was a bit of a farce, the topic is totally different. The key points of law involved the whistleblower/employment law perspective, NOT what MM told C/S.
1. We don't know the questions asked in Spanier's background investigation
2. We don't know the answer given to those questions.
3. We don't know the level of clearance granted, different levels have different requirements
4. All this information regarding Spanier with the scandal is in the public domain, a little difficult to blackmail him unless someone was willing to disclose new information that would get him convicted and tried to use that against him.
Which means that Spanier having a security clearance renewed may or may not demonstrate anything towards his guilt or innocence in the Sandusky scandal. All it means is that he was deem trustworthy to not disclose sensitive federal government information.
If anything, the whole incident PROVES his ability to keep sensitive information close to the vest.
I admire his willingness to fight this publicly. He may not even be guilty of anything. But he definitely doesn't come across as believable, in my opinion.
These guys may even be telling the truth in terms of what was reported to them. And they may have simply f'd up in making a bad decision with no bad intentions. There may have not been a conspiracy in 2001. But something doesn't sit right about Baldwin's involvement, etc in 2010/2011. Makes me wonder (if true) why Spanier was angry that Joe got his own attorney.
Schultz and Curley's plea may not even be to flip on Spanier( because he was the ring leader, etc), but simply be available to testify. Gary simply testifying that he discussed 1998 with Spanier and also told Spanier that WC recommendations to contact DPW will be plenty bad news for Spanier.
We absolutely do. It was SCI which is the highest level of civilian access.
Did you read the two Snedden reports or are you just talking out of your posterior?
But it's hogwash in everybody's eyes because they failed to keep their own records of having done that. What happened to CYA on their end? They failed at one of the most basic executive tasks--keeping records. Where's the email to Raykovitz, where's the response? ok.
McQueary would have faced the strongest cross from C/S's lawyers because they were the ones with direct meeting with MM. If he didn't tell them what he claimed to, they were they ones that could refute that.
Spanier never directly talked to MM, so what he must establish is what C/S told him not so much as what MM told C/S. Spanier cannot totally refute MM without C/S testimony, which less likely to happen, and be of less value now that they have admitted guilt. Again, this was a move to strenghten the case by removing obstacles to contradict the OAG story. Today there are fewer obstacles to having MM's testimony hold up than at the beginning of the week. C/S were the best hope to dash MM's testimony, not Spanier.
