Talk:Clair George

Robert Gates
From the Robert Gates article: "Independent Counsel made this decision subject to developments that could have warranted reopening his inquiry, including testimony by Clair E. George, the CIA's former deputy director for operations. At the time Independent Counsel reached this decision, the possibility remained that George could have provided information warranting reconsideration of Gates's status in the investigation. George refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel and was indicted on September 19, 1991. George subpoenaed Gates to testify as a defense witness at George's first trial in the summer of 1992, but Gates was never called." (emphasis added) Since Robert Gates has been nominate to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense for the United States, a discussion of Gates' connection to Clair E. George with respect to the investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair should be included in this article. It appears based on the above excerpt from the Gate's article, George had information on Gates' involvement. Thus, the fact George received a presidential pardon from Bush is significant. &mdash;204.42.17.216 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Clair George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514181208/http://archive.salon.com:80/news/feature/2001/08/30/circus/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/08/30/circus/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Clair George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060328075241/http://home.hamptonroads.com:80/stories/story.cfm?story=100246&ran=137920 to http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=100246&ran=137920

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Clair George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100818215053/http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/supct/html/94-172.ZO.html to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-172.ZO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Clair George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818215053/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-172.ZO.html to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-172.ZO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Claim about unconstitutionality of statute
The text claims the statute he was convicted under was later found unconstitutional. The cited Supreme Court case interpreted 18 USC 1001 not to apply to bankruptcy court proceedings. Congress clearly could have criminalized lying in court, and it fact did with a separate law punishing perjury. So the law was not unconstitutional, it just didn't mean what the prosecutor in one case thought it did. It's not even clear from the text of the article that he was convicted under that statute. I propose deleting the two sentences reading "In 1996, one of the laws used against George was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in an unrelated case." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)