Effectiveness of "vague" language in official reports to avoid lying.

[Calter]

A common argument I've seen people make is the government not using certain terms to avoid lying. An example of this is the UFO report saying "extraterrestrials" which some UFOlogist use to latch on to the idea that NHI are from this planet and/or from another dimension, so the government hasn't technically lied and isn't liable.

In the hypothetical case that it does all blow up and turns out that the government knew UFOs were actually some hyper advanced technology but just weren't "extraterrestrial", how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions? Is there any precedence for some secret conspiracy that turned out to be true and the conspirators were safe because they weren't technically lying at any point?

Personally, I feel if any judge were to hear "we said there were not aliens but we never said there wasn't an ancient super advanced submarine base 3D printing drones in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle", then that judge would just laugh at them and just say they are guilty of whatever they were charged with. But I'm also not an expert on the law (let alone American laws).

 

[JMartJr]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around conspiracy theorists, of all people, believing that the/a government would be hesitant to lie and needs to cleverly parse words to avoid it.

 

[Ann K]

In the hypothetical case that it does all blow up and turns out that the government knew UFOs were actually some hyper advanced technology but just weren't "extraterrestrial", how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions? Is there any precedence for some secret conspiracy that turned out to be true and the conspirators were safe because they weren't technically lying at any point?

You lost me at "defending themselves against any legal repercussions". The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything, although there are entities within the government with whom they share information. I think the word "extraterrestrial" is just their way of saying (truthfully) "Yes, there are flying objects, and yes, some are unidentified, but there is nothing there to interest you alien-hunters", with an unspoken "...so stop bothering us and go away and find your own aliens because we haven't got them."

 

[MapperGuy]

In your hypothetical case the "lie" is not really being told by any specific individual, it is being done by an Organization. As in many people had input into the false statement, some of whom may not have known that the statement was in fact false.

Sovereign immunity would kill changes against a Federal Government organization.

I suspect there is very, very little chance of anyone ever being prosecuted in a situation like that.

 

[Calter]

The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything, although there are entities within the government with whom they share information.

I assume that if the AARO report (or any government report) were literally all just made up lies and they give that to congress or whoever while saying it's true, then somebody would get in trouble for saying those lies. Otherwise, what's the point of making those reports if people can just lie to fit their narrative without even risking anything if they are discovered.

I agree that "extraterrestrial" is just a term to refer to "whatever alien stuff people are talking about".

But if tomorrow it comes out that actually part of the alien stuff people were talking about was true and the government knew, they just weren't extraterrestrials, would saying "well, we never said it wasn't that other stuff, we just said it wasn't extraterrestrials" actually work in any loophole fashion?

I know the general argument of an Ufologist that thinks this is filled with holes, I'm just curious if even if we ignore all the holes around the argument, the idea that it would actually work as a defense is also flawed.

As a comical example, if Kirkpatrick swore under oath that he knows of literally no programs that have extraterrestrials and then Grusch screamed "Objection!" like in Ace Attorney and showed Biden himself a picture of Kirkpatrick having a drink with 3 Greys, would saying "actually, those 3 Greys are from the underwater base in the pacific, so it's true that the program has no extraterrestrials since they are from Earth" actually work as a defense like Ufologists like to claim?

 

[deirdre]

The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything,

Congress requested the report for themselves.
It's perjury to lie to Congress.

assuming of course he is referring to AARO's recent historical report
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/

Article:

Title 18 USC § 1001, often simply referred to as false and misleading statements, makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully:

Falsify or conceal a material fact in any entry or document; or
Make oral statements to government officials which are materially false and misleading,
To an official of the federal government in an investigation or official proceeding.

Source: https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges-for-false-misleading-statements/

 

[Ann K]

Congress requested the report for themselves.
It's perjury to lie to Congress.

Congress isn't "the general public".

 

[deirdre]

Congress isn't "the general public".

i know. that's why i said the example given in the OP was referring to congress, not the general public.

 

[Mendel]

First of all, "NHI" is the vague term, encompassing everything from Dolphins to unmanned probes and angels.

Second, AARO has used unambiguos language.

Acting Director Tim Phillips: "And we found no actual UFO materials in any allegation or incident that was reported to us that we — or that was given to us by Congress." This is true no matter who you claim sent them. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aa...l-1-press-conference-with-tim-phillips.13381/ )

AARO report, summary:

None of the programs mentioned by interviewees are UAP reverse-engineering programs, and all the authentic programs have been properly notified and reported toCongress through the congressional defense and/or intelligence committees.
AARO has no evidence for the USG reverse-engineering narrative provided by interviewees and has been able to disprove the majority of the interviewees' claims. Some claims are still under evaluation.

Again, "UAP reverse-engineering" does not indicate the source of the UAP.

There are no non-human spacecraft launched from this planet.
Another dimension would literally be another world, so AARO's "off-world" (used interchangeably with extra-terrestrial), would include that.

 

[Gary C]

A related problem is the requirement to protect classified defense and intelligence gathering technology and operations. Once all of the sensitive national security references have been removed from one's report, you are left with limited options in constructing proper English sentences. It's one of the factors that contributes to migraine inducing dullness of most Pentagon documents.

 

[jdog]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around conspiracy theorists, of all people, believing that the/a government would be hesitant to lie and needs to cleverly parse words to avoid it.

Yes, we're often asked to believe that there is an international conspiracy to withhold limitless energy and technology from the general public, but that the people in control of these phenomenal resources and with billions (or trillions) of dollars available to fund their plans can't get a cover-up report published without typos and contradictions, but care about the legal consequences of poorly phrased statements.

 

[MonkeeSage]

But if tomorrow it comes out that actually part of the alien stuff people were talking about was true and the government knew, they just weren't extraterrestrials, would saying "well, we never said it wasn't that other stuff, we just said it wasn't extraterrestrials" actually work in any loophole fashion?

The Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" kind of worked in some degree, I guess?

Article:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence—a blue dress with Clinton's semen that Lewinsky provided—Starr concluded that the president's sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I ] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.[40]

Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[3][4] Clinton declined to appeal the civil contempt of court ruling, citing financial problems,[3] but still maintained that his testimony complied with Wright's earlier definition of sexual relations.[3] In 2001, his license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[5]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges

I have no idea if that could apply to the AARO report or Kirkpatrick though. But I kind of don't think it's even a question with the AARO report because regardless of the use of "extraterrestrial" and "off-world" and "UFO", the second part of the conclusion of the report seems unambiguous and would just have to an outright lie if it were untrue (bold in original):

Article:

SECTION IX: Conclusion
To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP represented off-world technology or the existence a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress. Investigative efforts determined that most sightings were the result of misidentification of ordinary objects and phenomena. Although many UAP reports remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.

Source: https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

"To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence [...for] the existence a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress" I don't think there's any getting around that.

 

[jesseconnell]

Congress requested the report for themselves.
It's perjury to lie to Congress.

The legal aspects of all of this are unclear (to me). Does signing off on the AARO report amount to making a statement under oath? Obviously the answer can't be an absolute "yes", because nobody would sign off on such a report if a small but clear mistake could be considered perjury.

Besides, congress requests a lot of things - arguably everything done by the federal government could be seen as fulfilling a request from congress, since all federal government activity is carrying out some action requested by congress (since it must be in the budget). That is a deliberately broad interpretation of "congress requesting something", but it underscores the point that the legal standard for lying to congress can't be that simple.

BTW, I've wondered this many times: when someone is asked a direct question in a congressional hearing and they say, "I'll have to get back to you on that", are they now legally obligated to follow through? Does their follow-up amount to a statement made under oath? I specifically wondered this during the UAP hearing last summer.

 

[deirdre]

Does signing off on the AARO report amount to making a statement under oath? Obviously the answer can't be an absolute "yes", because nobody would sign off on such a report if a small but clear mistake could be considered perjury.

if i make a mistake [under oath or against signed agreement if i'm a subcontractor etc] that is not perjury. perjury is if i knowingly lie.

BTW, I've wondered this many times: when someone is asked a direct question in a congressional hearing and they say, "I'll have to get back to you on that", are they now legally obligated to follow through?

LAYMAN response:

technically, but based on the subcommittee hearings i listen to while painting it is not always followed through. Once in a while i'll hear a congressperson say "if you dont provide the info by [certain date] you will be subpoenaed." But i dont personally know any instances where any punishments [contempt] have been handed out. I'm sure there have been some for important agencies, but i personally doubt the UFO squad [Grusch, Fravor, that other guy] would qualify as important enough an issue to pursue subpoenas or contempt charges.


Bottom line: Don't knowingly lie to Congress. Chances are, with fluff issues, nothing will be done to you, but it could end up costing you a shit ton in lawyer fees in the process.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

So, throwing my two cents in here.

To the original question, TECHNICALLY, yes. Although with the notorious, it depends. When people generally speak of deception like this, which is a defined thing, there are two forms in our conceptualization, "ambiguity increasing" and "ambiguity decreasing". People tend to speak of "ambiguity decreasing" which seeks to lead to the inaccurate belief when they try to explain techniques and etc for it. On the other hand "ambiguity increasing" specifically seeks to cause confusion, and is the type people are referencing itself, but inaccurately explain the process for.
While some things may exist in specific regards, no one has indicated it yet aligned with how any of that actually works. Until that happens, well, nothing shows it's happening or likely. Simply claiming it with inaccurate explanations of the process and no indicators raises a bit of extra doubt.

 

[Mendel]

To the original question, TECHNICALLY, yes.

Which question, exactly, are you answering here?

Generally, I can't say I understood most of your post. If you'd replace every instance of "it" and "people" with more precise referents, I might have a better chance?

What I think I did get is this:
• "ambiguity decreasing" means the deceiver explains things, but they're misleading
• "ambiguity increasing" means the deceiver confuses things

The statements "there is a secret program evading congressional oversight" and "the USG has non-human biologics", juxtaposed, create the mistaken non-ambiguous belief that the USG has a secret program analysing non-human biologics. Or proposing Kona Blue and then referring to it as a secret program that exists.

On the other hand, introducing "transdimensional travel" in a congressional hearing creates ambiguity.

I'm not sure where the technique of "overly specific denial" would be placed in that framework, as it tends to be both nonambiguous and create room for ambiguity: "there is no ancient super advanced submarine base 3D printing drones in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle" is both a clear statement and creates ambiguity as to what else could be there or where else that base could be.

Am I on the right track?

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Which question, exactly, are you answering here?

Generally, I can't say I understood most of your post. If you'd replace every instance of "it" and "people" with more precise referents, I might have a better chance?

What I think I did get is this:
• "ambiguity decreasing" means the deceiver explains things, but they're misleading
• "ambiguity increasing" means the deceiver confuses things

The statements "there is a secret program evading congressional oversight" and "the USG has non-human biologics", juxtaposed, create the mistaken non-ambiguous belief that the USG has a secret program analysing non-human biologics. Or proposing Kona Blue and then referring to it as a secret program that exists.

On the other hand, introducing "transdimensional travel" in a congressional hearing creates ambiguity.

I'm not sure where the technique of "overly specific denial" would be placed in that framework, as it tends to be both nonambiguous and create room for ambiguity: "there is no ancient super advanced submarine base 3D printing drones in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle" is both a clear statement and creates ambiguity as to what else could be there or where else that base could be.

Am I on the right track?

When I reference "it" and "people" here, I am using broad identifiers to not spin into diatribes of terminology that'd have to be explained. "People" in this case being practitioners. "It" was only used in reference after identifying the act (deception).

The more specific question of the two in the main post being answered is the only relevant one "how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions?" - this question becomes a lot trickier when that -increasing type is at play and it's not as simple as a flat yes/no. Even if you broaden that question more to focus on the possibility that it'd work *at all* anywhere, you can point out nations like China which actively practice activities in that catered manner, in Chinas case they call it legal warfare / lawfare. If there was any sort of intentional deception like that at play, which I've been very open that there is little to no indicators of this and I do not believe it is happening, the technical answer would be yes that the wordplay could be valid, saying it "would" is too for-sure for the context, but if your deception was successful then the question would become irrelevant because it would've worked, and thus, be "valid", although can only be applied in a post-context since speaking to it now it'd not be "valid" procedurally (ie if you told a court you were deceiving them, well. yeah. if you successfully achieved it though different story).
If we use "valid" purely in the context of what's technically permitted and allowed in our legal processes, deception left out, it would be "no" since deceiving legal processes is well, yeah. Although going back to the above, if you did it and it worked, the court wouldn't know and you would've done it, making the use of the technique itself "valid" in achieving its goal.

And in re technique usage, it'd more depend on the intent and objective. You are absolutely right some can have spin both ways although generally for deception the target pool is much more refined, if not a single individual, rather than other influence functions we see where larger bodies act as the target audiences. Same as with other forms of influence, that does not mean others wont see the content and take up their own beliefs on it, just means they aren't the intended target of an effort.
In the example you provided, it would be ambiguity increasing if the intent of that quote was to specifically induce that "what else could be out there?" line of thought. If that same target then slowly developed the belief that, it was specifically aliens, this would've resulted in a functional *decrease* in ambiguity (aside from the practiced type). Whether or not them developing this belief and it having an unintentional -decreasing impact despite the -increasing intent, some specifics can still alter its "success", such as the wanted behavioral change. Sometimes that unintentional decrease can still achieve the wanted behavior, you just would've spent more resources on it. I don't think its very likely ET narratives would be the one thing where practitioners consistently decide to take the "harder" type but pretty much solely achieve objectives aligned with the other type. The difference in planning, resources, funding, research & intelligence support is quite massive.

You seem to enjoy reading in depth more than a lot of folks & we end up crossing paths in these convos a lot. Would you be interested in a bunch of writings on the subject? I can compile them and shoot them your way in a DM later today. I feel like you'd be able to appreciate it and perhaps apply the knowledge yourself in these regards to strengthen points we tend to agree on in broader manners.

 

[Mendel]

Attempting a summary:

The more specific question of the two in the main post being answered is the only relevant one "how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions?"

Your answer is, it would work if it deceived the judge.

Going back to your previous post:

While some things may exist in specific regards, no one has indicated it yet aligned with how any of that actually works. Until that happens, well, nothing shows it's happening or likely. Simply claiming it with inaccurate explanations of the process and no indicators raises a bit of extra doubt.

I'd translate that as, the AARO wording may have a specific purpose, but there are no indications that it is part of a deception, and there is no indication that the people suspecting AArO of deception could identify such a deception campaign (using the word "campaign" loosely).

---

My personal take:

Concerning AARO, anyone exercising oversight (e.g. appropriate congressional committees or the Secretary of Defense) could ask for clarification, and that'd end the ambiguity. You can't hide things in the open when people can make you put your cards on the table.

Concerning the conspiracy theorists, you've explained before that an actual deception campaign comes with context, i.e. some plan of what it is intended to achieve and how.

What we have here instead is a conspiracy theorist seeing a potential clue and then fantasizing a narrative (not much of one, actually) to go with it. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-game-designer’s-analysis-of-qanon.11509/ )

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or oversimplifying.

 

[Duke]

A few observations from someone who's had to write those reports. First and foremost, in over 30 years of working for NASA and the DoD, I was never once asked/told to mislead or lie in any document I prepared. Admittedly, I can count on one hand the number of times I prepared a document knowing it was for public release, but we were told from day one to assume EVERYTHING (other than classified or privacy act covered material) we wrote was subject to released under FOIA. It was all potentially public release. We were taught to invoke the "60 Minutes/Mike Wallace" rule....as in would you be able to defend what you wrote in front of a TV camera being grilled by a dogged interviewer like the late Mr Wallace?

Anything that was prepared for public release was required to be submitted to and reviewed by/released through Public Affairs (PA). This was after the document had been approved up your own chain. PA in turn would route the document through applicable organizations (legal, OpSec, functionals, other government agencies, etc.) for review/comment/coordination as applicable. Their job was then to incorporate all the inputs received into a revised, final document before public release. It should come as no surprise the final release product was generally more vague than the original document since it had to be approved by a consensus of people/organizations looking out for their specific "rice bowl." (A former GO boss referred to this as "group grope.")

Also, if being interviewed as a function of our job, PA was required to be present during the interview and had the authority to instruct the employee to not answer a question or "clarify" responses. They could also shut down interviews, although I only know of that happening once. Most of the PA officers I worked with were quite savvy, and made the process almost effortless.

I have a difficult time believing this process is much different than what would be used by non-government/corporate entities. Ultimately, the goal is to make yourself look good while covering you ass (CYA.)

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Attempting a summary:

Your answer is, it would work if it deceived the judge.

Going back to your previous post:

I'd translate that as, the AARO wording may have a specific purpose, but there are no indications that it is part of a deception, and there is no indication that the people suspecting AArO of deception could identify such a deception campaign (using the word "campaign" loosely).

---

My personal take:

Concerning AARO, anyone exercising oversight (e.g. appropriate congressional committees or the Secretary of Defense) could ask for clarification, and that'd end the ambiguity. You can't hide things in the open when people can make you put your cards on the table.

Concerning the conspiracy theorists, you've explained before that an actual deception campaign comes with context, i.e. some plan of what it is intended to achieve and how.

What we have here instead is a conspiracy theorist seeing a potential clue and then fantasizing a narrative (not much of one, actually) to go with it. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-game-designer's-analysis-of-qanon.11509/ )

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or oversimplifying.

Spot on.

I have a difficult time believing this process is much different than what would be used by non-government/corporate entities. Ultimately, the goal is to make yourself look good while covering you ass (CYA.)

Pretty much the same, just less groups with the ability to bat down whatever you're doing. Depends on the company though, the ones with full suite corporate comms teams that split into different functions run into that a lot and can become just as much of a headache. Especially when Marketing and PR clash.

 

[John J.]

- I know this is isn't the humour thread, but maybe this example of the use of precise language in an official context, and the need to know, will raise a smile. (To be critical, I don't think someone who says something that isn't true, but reasonably believes it to be true, is lying, though their opponents might see it that way, an issue that sometimes crops up in our discussions here.)

The first man speaking (and initially standing) is a senior civil servant.

"To decide to conceal information from you is a heavy burden for any official to shoulder, but to decide not to reveal information to you is routine procedure."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX45hc0aZt0


From BBC TV series Yes, Prime Minister (1988), uploaded by YouTube user 1w3rpass c. 2015.

 

[jdog]

- I know this is isn't the humour thread, but maybe this example of the use of precise language in an official context, and the need to know, will raise a smile. (To be critical, I don't think someone who says something that isn't true, but reasonably believes it to be true, is lying, though their opponents might see it that way, an issue that sometimes crops up in our discussions here.)

The first man speaking (and initially standing) is a senior civil servant.

"To decide to conceal information from you is a heavy burden for any official to shoulder, but to decide not to reveal information to you is routine procedure."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX45hc0aZt0


From BBC TV series Yes, Prime Minister (1988), uploaded by YouTube user 1w3rpass c. 2015.

A point boldly raised, sir, boldly raised indeed in this era. I share your concern to an immeasurable degree and look forward to the opportunity for this issue to receive the appropriate amount of attention in the necessary forums, where all parties involved can contribute their insights. It is through your embrace of this topic that progress can be ensured, and I anticipate great advancements in due time thanks to your thoughtful and resolute leadership.

 

[John J.]

thanks to your thoughtful and resolute leadership.

Thanks for the vote of confidence even though spoken in jest-
-but I could no more show leadership here than herd cats, with ADHD, after they've each had 3 large espressos.
Grateful to Mick and the Mods for doing so.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

First and foremost, in over 30 years of working for NASA and the DoD, I was never once asked/told to mislead or lie in any document I prepared.

In the 15 years I worked for NASA and the FAA, I did work on public release materials and we went through extreme lengths to make sure that nothing was phrased in such a way as to inadvertently mislead.

 

[jesseconnell]

...I'm sure there have been some [contempt instances] for important agencies, but i personally doubt the UFO squad [Grusch, Fravor, that other guy] would qualify as important enough an issue to pursue subpoenas or contempt charges.

Agreed. In fact, even if they were found to knowingly lie (or give misleading testimony, or lack candor, etc), I can't imagine any of these overly-credulous members of congress, who just got done fawning over a witness ("thank you for your honest testimony", etc), turning around and pressing for contempt because the witness gave untruthful answers regarding, say, (total hypothetical here) having been in contact with AARO.

What would they gain? Piss off the conspiracy theorist portion of their constituents to gain what? To me, that hearing was nothing but a friendly/fluff event - definitely not a cross-examination or a politically heated topic where someone's got you in their sights. Sure, you're under oath, so avoid outright perjury. But I short of that I suspect you're free to omit stuff, give super vague responses, allude to BS claims, etc.

Re: the UAP report, I don't doubt its veracity, just always wonder where the line gets drawn on legal ramifications for this kind of thing.

(Incidentally, Mellon's critique actually made me think the report must be pretty good. Presumably he covered the low-hanging fruit problems, but his corrections seemed pretty weak, at best - many just wrong or reaching.)

 

[deirdre]

Re: the UAP report, I don't doubt its veracity, just always wonder where the line gets drawn on legal ramifications for this kind of thing.

this might help, i bolded the parts i feel say you cant lie in the uap report.

Article:

Q: What are the rules about lying to Congress?

A: Glad you asked. If you are testifying in front of Congress sometime soon, and are wondering how far you can bend the truth, there are a two key statutes governing perjury you need to be aware of: U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.

Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html

Assuming the uap head did not take an oath when he was hired, 1001 says

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned notmore than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment im-§ 1001 TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 282posed under this section shall be not more than8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party toa judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to ajudge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection(a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules ofthe House or Senate.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg.../USCODE-2014-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf