while somewhat downplaying the fact that he's not being charged for "making stuff up on TV". He's being charged for falsifying information while working for various government agencies
It looks as though he only "worked for" the government as an independent contractor through third party agencies. He was charged with numerous attempts to falsify records while trying to obtain work/clearances which, given that he is currently under arrest and facing up to 35 years in prison, would suggest that the government did in fact do some background checking.
And he didn't "work" for Fox News at all. So why not make the story about these third party companies and their lack of vetting process? Surely you can see how this is more about attacking Fox News than it is about reporting the story. If the companies that hired him as a security expert didn't catch his false credentials, how the heck do you expect Fox to have done so? He's going to hand them the same bogus resume, right?
I also kinda love how the Left has jumped on this guy and his association with Fox, but my response when reading this was "who?". I'm sure he's appeared as an "expert" in some capacity on a few segments, but from the pictures I've seen, I don't recognize him, or his name. So in the vast number of people that Fox might put on the screen to comment on something, he's just one in the crowd at best.
I'm mean, it's not like this guy claimed to have come under fire while flying into Bosnia, or that an attack on an embassy building was the result of a video, or filed exit documentation asserting that she'd turned over all classified documents related to his work at the State Department, only to have kept them on his email server at home.
He was happy to give his "expert opinion" on all those things though
Sure. As well as a hundred other people, most of whom I'm assuming actually do have the credentials they provided. So... Him having made up his past does what to the narrative? That's right. Nothing at all. If a hundred people all say the same thing, and 99 of them actually are expert, but one of them is discovered to have just pretended to be, does that make what the other 99 said wrong? That's silly logic right there.
Your knee-jerk defense of Fox News is noted, however.
As opposed to the knee-jerk attack on Fox News? I just responded to what I saw. I'd say the same thing regardless of news agency. It's not like he was a paid host, or an actual reporter. So I'm not sure what the issue is. OMG! We need to vet everyone we put on a "man on the street" segment, because they might not be who they claim to be. Maybe one of those college students we interviewed for the campus drinking segment wasn't really a student after all! Ah... The horror!
I just found it funny that the immediate and overwhelming approach to this story was to mention that he'd been on Fox news. Seemed obvious why that was the take on things.