White House tried to pressure 4 star general to lie to congr

Post Reply New Topic

So either the General was lieing in the first meeting under oath, or he is lieing now assuming you are telling the truth which is questionable since you are not posting a source.

Especially since I have another bit of supporting evidence to throw your statement in doubt.


A second government official has come forward saying the White House tried to influence his testimony concerning a wireless broadband project backed by a Democratic donor that military officials fear might impair sensitive satellite navigation systems.





Anthony Russo, director of the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, told The Daily Beast he rejected “guidance” from the White House’s Office of Budget and Management suggesting he tell Congress that the government’s concerns about the project by the firm LightSquared could be resolved in 90 days, a timetable favorable to the company’s plans.

“They gave that to me and presumably the other witnesses,” Russo said. “There is one sentence I disagreed with, which said that I thought the testing could be resolved in 90 days. So I took it out.”



Russo said he objected to that language because “I have low confidence that we can complete all of the testing in 90 days.” He estimated that such testing would take at least six months. Russo called the White House efforts to alter his testimony “guidance rather than pressure.”



Russo’s comments come just days after four-star Air Force Gen. William Shelton, who heads U.S. Space Command, told Congress in a classified briefing that he felt pressured by the White House to change his testimony about the same project to make it more favorable to the company.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... dance.html

So bergie, I suggest you post your source up, if you even have one.

You, apparently, don't have a clue what perjury means.



If that is, in fact, the case, then General should be resigning his commission. He hasn't, so we can reasonably conclude that he supports the White House's policy. That's the role of public servants and military personnel. There is a time and a place for dissent--but this is no such place.



Again, you are not being accurate. The White House statement was that the Pentagon would try to resolve the issues. Are you now suggesting that the Pentagon would wilfully refuse an order from its political leaders to make that attempt?



Nice try. Next time bring a stepladder and maybe you can reach the high shelf.

So you're saying a General should follow orders to endorse something that would essentially disable our National Defense? You do realize an order like that could be considered treasonous.

Such an order might well be--but that was not the order that was given to him, was it?

The order was to express support for the policy of creating more bandwidth for commercial purposes.

"I support the Administration seeking new ways to provide bandwidth for commercial users. I do not believe that this is the way to achieve that policy."

How hard is that to say?

Actually it is an impossible to follow order without committing perjury, because the test results completely contradicted the White House stance, and the General was testifying under oath, the results of said tests. So if the General is called to testify about the results of the tests concerning the product; the White House tells him to support the product, but the test results completely and utterly contradict that argument, you're telling me he should commit perjury by supporting the product instead of truthfully telling Congress the results of the test? Furthermore, the problem was the fundamental design of the lightsquared product itself, even their "filter" didn't do much to improve the situation. These things would turn the entire US into a giant GPS deadzone, additionally there is no way in hell to fix the problem in 90 days unless lightsquared can completely redesign and rebuild their product in that time.