Interesting info from Stephanie Miller on NSA hearings

[FreedomAngel82]

I'm listening to Stephanie Miller's show from the seventh of this month and a caller called in and told how she called Specter's office to ask why they weren't swearing in Gonzalez. According to her the assistant in Specter's office claimed that they are already sworn in because of their position in the government etc. Does anybody know about this?

[still_one]

1. If true, then he has committed purjury, and I do NOT believe

he would have testified if that was the case

At a minimum they would have to inform him that he was still under oath

[SeattleGirl]

2. Randi Rhodes said something about that the other day.

I believe she said that even if you are not sworn in, lying to Congress is a crime. I won't swear that that is exactly what she said, but I think it's close.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Has anybody tried calling someone else on

the Judicary Committee and asked? :shrug:

[papau]

5. she did say that and she is correct n/t

n/t

[punpirate]

4. Seems to me that if they were still under oath...

... because of their initial swearing in, it would make the Dems look like fools for asking. Moreover, it would have to apply 24/7 until they left office--to everything--for it to also count in a Congressional hearing. So, I don't think that was it. As well, if it applies to the Attorney General in that way, it also applies to every other government officer, including Bush, including the SOTU, including the sixteen little words. So, I don't think that's the real reason.

There is another law regarding misleading Congress, but it's still difficult to prosecute, precisely because there's no oath. Perjury is pretty well-defined. Under oath, Gonzales would not have been able to simply declare he wouldn't answer a question, as a government official, without citing a statute preventing him from doing so.

Nope, they didn't want to swear him because then he could be compelled to answer, in one way or another, either through limited immunity or by contempt of Congress. That's why he wasn't. He could argue executive privilege, but Gonzales knows there are SC rulings extant on that business, and they say that executive privilege does not extend to matters of criminal wrongdoing.

Cheers.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. Somebody here posted the US code regarding making false

statements to Congress

if he lied, he can be prosecuted

operative word, of course, is can

how many other high profile nominees have gotten away with lying their asses off, and gotten away with it?

don't hold your breath on this...less the dems somehow generate some spinal material and regain control of one of the houses.....as I said, don't hold breath

that was hard

here:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 Prev | Next

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally


Release date: 2005-08-03

(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—
(1) 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 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge 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 of the House or Senate.