[See update at bottom of article, for response from whistleblower in Don Siegelman case.]
Given the questions concerning whether or not Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be required to testify under oath as part of their agreement to give “transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury” concerning the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, as announced yesterday by House Judiciary chairman John Conyers, we thought we’d seek some clarification.
We asked a senior source on the U.S. House Judiciary team whether or not taking an oath before testifying would be required, or whether the agreement requires Rove and Miers not be placed under oath. Writes our source in reply:
See the copy of 18 USC, Sec. 1001, as sent by the House Judiciary source below…
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
-HEAD-
Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally
-STATUTE-
(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, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(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.
UPDATE 3/6/09: The complete agreement with Rove and Miers is now posted here…
FURTHER UPDATE 3/6/09: Dana Jill Simpson, a key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, responds to our report, and wonders why she had to take the oath before testifying to Congress, but Rove and Miers don’t have to. Full story, statement here…
I wonder whether “I do not recall” can be considered as perjury!
Yes, “I don’t recall” can be perjury, but it is hard to prove that someone did recall. Naturally, if no one is going to make Rove and Miers come in for questioning, then no one is going to prosecute them for anything.
As mentioned by many who commented on the previous article, this smells like a cover up.
So, lying when you testify to Congress is a crime even without an oath? The what the hell happened when the oil exec. were up there testifying that they never had meetings with Cheney. And all the other stuff they lied about.
Just wondering….
Relative to yesterday’s comment from John Gideon about what “agreement” might have been made — it seems questioning is only to be only about U.S. attorneys. So no questions about Don Siegelman might have been the “agreement” (as well as no oath).
No oath, no accountability.
So if lying to Congress is already a crime, the oath would be just a formality. Lets make this a formal affair and administer the oath, after all, it won’t make any difference, right?
Given the previous refusal to testify- at all- despite congressional subpoenas, I find it impossible to believe that suddenly they’re going to spill the beans concerning anything that will be helpful to any investigation. My guess is they’re going up there so reich-wingers can say “See! They testified! Now leave them alone…” I doubt they’ll reveal anything except by accident. We’ll see.
If no oath is needed than why have them testify behind closed doors? What could possibly be gained by this? And, they should have already been sited for contempt for their previous non- shows.
It looks like Siegelman got a new trial on only a couple of counts and the 11th Circuit upheld the rest of his convictions. See http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/op.../200713163.pdf
Not putting them under oath is just another version of “nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more…”
They didn’t enforce 3 subpeanas, they stood down while elections were stolen and one of their own was locked up (siegelman) by a partisan justice department.
They stood down after the criminal cabal behind dur chimpfurher lied this nation into a war of conquest and systematically destroyed the bill of rights and constitution.
If anyone think the dems are going to hold either of these 2 lying liars accountable for what they say in their testimony, they are not paying attention.
Can anyone explain:
1. WHY there will be no oath given? Since it must be just an “formality,” according to the above statements, what’s the problem with Rove and Miers taking the oath? I really want an answer to that. And WHY do other people who testify have to take the oath?
2. WHY is this testimony going to be taken behind closed doors, instead of in public view just as others have testified before congress?
3. Will there be someone available to count the phrases: I don’t recall, I can’t recollect, I’m not aware of that, I don’t remember, etc.?
4. WHY was President Clinton’s deposition put on TV live? Are Rove and Miers more privileged than a President? They’ll testify, but only under THEIR conditions…is that it?
Unless this testimony is done in a regular hearing, covered by C-Span, I feel no assurance that anyone will be held accountable for wrongdoing…and there was plenty of that.
The Congressional Judiciary is supposed to get to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is a one-shot deal and it’s already incredibly messed up, in my opinion.
When are the Democrats going to take REAL action and not just threaten to do their duty, in letters?
I feel no one should have to comply with a subpoena now that Rove and Miers ignored theirs, not once, but several times, with absolutely no consequences!
I would really like to know just exactly what ALL of the terms that were agreed to are. It seems to me this will be another Dog and Pony Show with NO meaningful results. This statement “It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited” seems to allow plenty of wiggle room for Rove and Myers to talk and say NOTHING.
Correct me if I’m wrong? does’nt the congress judicuary represent the people of the u.s.? and we the people want these hearings out in the open. not behind closed doors. thats how all this mess started in the first place. (behind) closed doors and away from the public. Chairman coyners are you listening to the people you represent.
Why bother? Why even go to the trouble of calling them in? Seriously, this is disturbing – we know they will lie, but make perjury part of the consequence. This is just ridiculous.
Lets dispense with the testimony entirely.
To the gallows!
As i said in 2001. This is all bs. How many times do we have to be lied to and disappointed, for us to finally get it? They have flipped the congress off 3 times over the last few years without congress doing a thing to them. Nothing they say means anything to me.
When is this “transcribed testimony” supposed to take place? In a week, a few weeks, a month, a few months….WHEN? No one seems to know. meanwhile, Rove walks around like the king of the hill, taking deliberate shots at President Obama, Obama’s cabinet, and the Democrats in Congress. Looks like he already KNOWS that this “transcribed testimony” will be a cake walk, with some invocations of privilege still allowed! WHAT privileges? Bush said many times that no one spoke to HIM about the U.S. Attorney firings or about Gov.Siegelman…so where’s the “privilege”…when this farce begins? Aren’t those 2 things Rove has agreed to ‘testify” about?
It’s over. They conned you. The next con is underway and by the time you figure that one out it will be too late as well. You’re screaming for a conviction that if it ever occurs will amount to a slap on the wrist and laughing behind closed doors. These people are all puppets. Presidents even dictators are all someone’s puppet. Go for the sources and find out just how long your blog stays up.
Stop buying any brand that is advertised. Stop watching TV and let their ratings drop. Start demanding paper ballots. Run for local office and create change.
What a waste of time. Not putting them under oath is giving them the open door to lie, cheat, and dodge. Nothing positive will come from this.
Karl “Miss Piggy” Rove isn’t afraid of prison…he already has experience being the “catcher”!
As for Harriett “Iron Maiden” Miers…she always has a strap-on double penetrator ready with lube.
But enough with the humor. These two, and others from the past administration, must be made to answer for their scumbaggery, or expect others to continue their chicanery with impunity.
Just like Madoff and Stanford…if there’s no downside to having committed the crime, why stop?