General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMother Jones asked three constitutional law professors if Sessions could be prosecuted for perjury.
We asked three constitutional law professors. Here's what they said.
NATHALIE BAPTISTEMAR. 2, 2017 1:54 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/can-jeff-sessions-be-prosecuted-perjury
The answer is not exactly cut and dry. At the time of his confirmation hearings, Sessions was still serving as a senator from Alabama. The Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause shields lawmakers from prosecution for lying during proceedings in the House or Senate. The clause was written with the intent to foster debate in Congress without the threat of lawsuits stifling discussion. So, since Sessions was a sitting Senator when he allegedly misled Congress, does that mean he's off the hook? Mother Jones put the question to three constitutional law experts.
"There might be other things he can be prosecuted for," says Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Cornell University, referencing laws that allow Congress to hold individuals in contempt for providing false testimony. But, says Chafetz, Sessions can't be prosecuted for perjury.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe sees it differently. "That would be a laughable misuse of the Speech and Debate Clause," he says. "He was testifying under oath as an (Attorney General) nominee, not in the discharge of any Senatorial business of his own."
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman says he's inclined to believe that Sessions is not protected by the clause. Still, Ackerman says there's no decisive case law on the issue, which muddies the waters. "Only one thing is clear," he says, "Sessions must recuse himself, and it is incumbent on the Administration to appoint a special prosecutor."
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)wasn't a senator and he wasn't charged with perjury.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)So politicians protected by the same protections that Sessions enjoys will NOT push the issue. Which is where an independent outsider would be handy.
Warpy
(111,286 posts)then Dolt45 might have done this country--and the people of Alabama--a great service by shining a strong light on him.
He's been a segregationist stink in government for far too long and I always thought the only way we'd get him out is feet first after he'd broken Thurmond's record.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Caliman73
(11,740 posts)If you have to lie to continue a debate, then I think you have lost the debate. Only in congress would it be protected to lie.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,842 posts)Pacifist Patriot
(24,653 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that his testimony had to do with the "legislative acts" protected by the speech and debate clause.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Cosmocat
(14,566 posts)It was not floor discussion and he was not acting as a senator, he was in a confirmation hearing for a cabinet position for the executive branch (a job interview).
Really, if there is no expectation that he answers honestly, why do it? AND, he is far from the only senator to go through this process.
Had Hillary purjed herself like that during her SOS hearing ...
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)... it was good enough for HUAC.
-- Mal
JudyM
(29,251 posts)His problem is that he has become so accustomed to lying in the Senate that he didn't think to watch himself.