Justice Officials Won't Take Oath Before Briefing

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By PAMELA HESS (AP) – 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — A House intelligence committee meeting was abruptly terminated when Justice Department officials refused to be sworn in before briefing the lawmakers.

The officials had been expected to brief the committee Wednesday on the department's review of an internal CIA report on the 2001 shootdown of a plane over Peru that was carrying American missionaries. Two of the passengers were killed.

Officials are routinely sworn in before giving testimony at formal congressional hearings, but the meeting was billed as an informal briefing — which normally does not require taking an oath.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Justice employees "have previously briefed committee staff on this matter and were prepared to provide a similar informal briefing to committee members."

"We are unaware of any precedent for Department officials providing informal briefings to be placed under oath," she said.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTP0bKUzgSqMDMrJVCMhKpx7xS5wD9B70OU80

[rfranklin]

1. What are they concerned about?

Just wondering.

[sofa king]

3. Well, any time "CIA" and "missionaries" appears in the same sentence...

There is a silent "were murdered by" in there as well. Missionaries don't generally murder CIA agents.

[joeycola]

7. that they might be asked to tell the truth??

[Igel]

22. Precedent. n/t

[mikelgb]

2. uhm, fine now it's formal, get your stories straight and come back

criminals

[Tempest]

9. Situation resolved

I wouldn't testify under oath at an informal briefing either.

Nor would I testify under oath without legal counsel, which is what they are being denied.

[robinlynne]

4. interesting.

[bertman]

5. "The truth will set you free." But it appears these "justice" officials are worried that it might

incarcerate them.

Recommend.

[mbperrin]

6. Never have understood why it's okay to lie not under oath.

Some help here?

[Akoto]

8. Well, as I understand it ...

If you testify while not under oath, and get caught BSing your way through the whole thing, you can't be charged with perjury. So, you can come up with some convenient cover excuse. "I remembered incorrectly," or whatever.

Morally, it's not okay to lie while not under oath, but scumbags will do it. Legally, there's a difference in terms of protecting your own ass.

[dhpgetsit]

11. I believe it is illegal to mislead Congress

Even when you are not under oath.

ETA "title 18, section 1001 of the U.S. Code make it illegal for anyone to in any way mislead Congress, subjecting the violator to a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years, ... "

from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp105s5nKF&refer=&r_n=hr139.105&db_id=105&item=&sel=TOC_57287&

[harmonicon]

12. it's not ok, but it's not illegal either - that's why they do it (nt)

[No Elephants]

24. It is illegal.

[L. Coyote]

27. a felony to lie to Congress

Lying under oath adds a second charge to the indictment, likely forthcoming.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

14. They all took an oath prior to taking office

and that should be a sufficient enough reason to hold them accountable for anything related to their job, including briefings.

[Blackhatjack]

10. Evidence that these officials are now considering their own possibility of being prosecuted...

... and the Bush Administration no longer has their backs.

In a nutshell, when you have been lying and or not being fully forthcoming in your previous briefings to Congress, how do you begin telling the truth today without revealing evidence that leads to incurring criminal culpability?

Even if they wanted to tell the truth, they can't do so without some kind of immunity.

[Igel]

21. Right.

And reluctance by a defendant to testify in court, or a desire to take the 5th (shudder), is prima facie evidence of guilt.

To do either carries an immediate guilty verdict, apparently.

Jeesh. I certainly hope that you're not a judge.

[Blackhatjack]

23. Evidently you have logical association problems and deficient legal knowledge....

Invoking your 5th Amendment privilege not to testify is personal. These were individuals acting in their official public capacity as representatives of the DOJ. They are not 'defendants' because they have not been charged with any crime.

They were appearing before Congress to answer questions about a matter over which Congress has oversight responsibility, which is not a trial.

IF you knew anything about the law you would not display your ignorance by indicating that an individual invoking his or her 5th Amendment privilege is 'prima facie evidence' of anything, let alone guilt. ("Prima facie case" means you have proffered evidence which proves each and every element of the claim made in your case that will stand unless rebutted by evidence presented by the non-moving party). As far as was reported, there was no presentment of evidence by the withdrawing individuals, and no attempt was made to invoke any kind of Constitutional privilege individually, or as public officials on the behalf of the DOJ. They just refused to testify under oath.

And for your further edification, verdicts are rendered by juries, and there are no 'immediate guilty verdicts.' A verdict is rendered only after a trial occurs and the jury is charged with the applicable law before deliberating.

There is indeed a danger inherent in individuals testifying before Congress in their official capacities. IF they acted outside the scope of their authority, then those actions would subject such individuals to possible criminal prosecution(ie. see Scooter Libby trial). And if they testify falsely, or incompletely after swearing to tell the whole truth, then lying to Congress would also subject them to possible criminal prosecution.

As a public official, you cannot lie to Congress. Further, you cannot refuse to testify before Congress without a specific Constitutional privilege that allows you to withhold such testimony.

So as my post clearly points out, their refusal to be first duly sworn before testifying before Congress leads to well grounded speculation that the above possibilities existed.

[Trillo]

13. Are the rest of us offered such cushy terms should we be compelled similarly? nt

[robo50]

15. Notice how the news release quotes Republican Hoekstra who

blames the OBAMA administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOT VERY Nice !

[mudderfudder77]

16. Were their Lawyers Present?

I wouldn't testify under oath without my lawyer present - no matter how innocent I might be.

[mbperrin]

17. Are Justice Department officials likely to be lawyers of some competence

themselves? Just checking to see who I'm paying to fuck me and to fuck others in my name.

[No Elephants]

25. Their legal competence may depend upon who hired them. Bushco hired

hundreds of lawyers for the D of J and other departments who were graduated from Christian law schools that were not even accredited at the time the lawyers attended them. Pat Robertson's was one. Trinity had one. I think Liberty (Founded by Falwell) may have had one too. Many of those graduates then went on to fail the bar exam.

[mbperrin]

26. So now I get to pay the legal fees for fucking idiots who do evil deeds in

my name to see if they can avoid prosecution. Really nice.

I always thought officers of the court took an oath to see justice done, rather than trying to get the guilty acquitted.

Seems actually unethical to promote guilty folks paying no penalty for their criminal activity, just as surely as taking it too far, the death penalty for shoplifting, for example.

Yet somehow we have little trouble with evil bastards being released entirely.

[Crzyrussell]

18. If the terms of

the meetings have changed then their behavior was entirely appropriate. Even if I was innocent I would want a lawyer by my side if I was providing testimony to congress.

[spaten]

19. when did the Congress start caring about being lied to?

if they did , Hank Paulson would be in prison where he belongs.

[naaman fletcher]

20. Congress should be held to the same standard..

The key part of the swearing in of a Congressman ought to be a 2 year oath not to tell a lie, a felony if broken. Just imagine how much better the country would be. Also, all congressional offices should be on camera with microphone, and congressmen should be forbidden from discussing the peoples business anywhere but on the floor, in offfices, and/or other taped conference rooms.

A hassle? yes. OK, lets up their pay by 500K per year to make up for the hassle. The results will be worth the extra money.