« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mukasey Testimony Free and Easy Without Oath
In a rather odd bit of procedural maneuvering, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), neglected to swear Attorney General Michael Mukasey before he testified to the committee today.
Mukasey seemed perplexed, and mentioned the omission before questioning began by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):
CONYERS: The Chair recognizes, to begin the questioning, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York.MUKASEY: I'm sorry, um, Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to raise a matter that's none of my business, but I haven't been placed under oath. Did you want me to take an oath?
CONYERS: No, I do not require that.
We're no strangers to hearings here at TPM, but we're not quite sure what's going on with this. Our best guess? Conyers is trying to ensure quality testimony from Mukasey by relaxing the hearing. Readers have any other guesses?
I believe it's still a crime to lie to Congress even when you're not under oath. Is there a lawyer in the house?
July 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be 18 USC sec. 1001.
July 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's clear that Conyers doesn't give a tinkers damn about oversight; this just confirms it!
July 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conyers wouldn't be bothered with such a technical issue since other witness don't bother to follow the law and thumb their noses and asses straight into Conyers face! Conyers is a joke and an embarrassment to all Americans where he can just look the other way and accomplish nothing with his hearings. Witness now realize that he will NOT uphold the law so why would swearing witness be an issue! Conyers is dirty(old politics) and is complicit to the Bushies!
July 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, it doesn't matter if you are sworn in, you still can't lie to Congress; it's illegal and you can be prosecuted.
July 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The friggin issue here is that Conyers allows witness to honor the law and appear brfore the committee. he does arrest anyone for failure to appear. how many prosecutions are you aware of if the law of the land is not upheld! Conyers is a joke and complicit to the Bushies. Can you honestly challenge that? I could care less if they are sworn in or not...honoring the law is congress job to all of us as citizens...
July 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit function please...
dishonor the law....
July 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a crime to make materially false statements to Congress under 18 U.S.C. section 1001, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Mukasey is well aware of this as well, as is Congressman Conyers. So, all an oath does for Mr. Mukasey is provide for the crime of perjury; duplicative at best under the Sentencing Guidelines after a conviction. So an oath for Mr. Mukasey is completely unnecessary. An oath is used in Congress for others testifying to remind them of the criminal liability of lying to Congress; not that it is actually necessary.
July 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My belief....
Not too deep...
Conyers forgot... Mukasey remembered... Conyers didn't want to be one upped by Mukasey...
Oh, some of you folks probably thought these clowns were actually trying to help us common folks, didn't you?
I really don't think Congress has been thinking of us peopns for many years now... too busy thinking about their OWN future... not time left to think about us or our nation... IMHO
July 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take:
He knows damn well that oath or no oath, Mukasey's going to fib, obfuscate, and "not recall". So he's making a point of demonstrating this, in effect saying "We wont even bother to swear you in, b/c we know it matters not a whit whether you'll give us honest answers. And we would like the publice to take notice, too."
July 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops sent an e-mail rather than a comment.
My belief is that Conyers was sending a deliberate and insulting message to Mukasey going something like this:
"We know that even though you are a former Federal Judge and current Attorney General and so doubly obligated to defend the rule of law you will lie and say whatever is needed to protect your real clients, who are not the American people, but instead the President and the Vice-President. So why kid around with an oath."
People need to face up to some unpleasant facts. Under an Obama Administration it is quite conceivable that lots and lots of people are going to be sent to prison for theft and fraud that can come with a dollar figure attached. That is KBR has a lot to worry about. But the purely political and judicial crimes including shredding of the Consitution by people like Cheney, Rove, Rumsfield, Woo and Addington will be punished by nothing more than the verdict of history. Absent war crimes trials in the Hague all of these perps are going to walk.
Because in one of the ugly ironies of history the politization of the DOJ and its abject subjugation to the White House offers the perfect defence for these guys, they will simply claim the new people are just playing by the old rules and so are equally guilty.
Cheney will be dead and gone before the DOJ will be able to rebuild its reputation as an honest enforcer of the laws on behalf of the people of the United States. Starting out next Spring with a series of political trials won't advance that goal. However satisfying the vision of John Woo and David Addington tied back to back in stress positions might be, it is not going to happen. Hell they won't even strip Woo of tenure at Boalt Hall Law School at Berkeley.
Conyers is just being realistic here. Waxman may be able to send all kinds of contractors to jail, and the Public Integrity section at DOJ may be able to do the same to some dirty Congressmen, but by and large the major criminals are going to not only walk but get major pensions to go along.
We don't have to like it, that is the way it is.
July 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey didn't mention the omission of the oath for nothing. Nor did Conyers forget it for nothing. The question is, what is the game going on between the two of them.
For those who are criticle of Conyers, he doesn't have a lot of help from his own Democratic party. Too many of them are also involved and guilty of illegalites against the American people.
The Democrats support for the recent FISA bill was to cover their own behinds.
They too, voted for an illegal war and they too supported the illegal spying on the American people.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not t see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
July 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall that AG Gonzales was not sworn in before the Committee when Specter was running that show. There was a lot of objection from other committee members but to no avail. Specter gave no reason for his decision and because of it the entire testimony of the AG of the United States became suspect.
We tout America as a country dedicated to law, but that morning it became clear that our tout is no more than an empty brag.
July 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter whether or not you are sworn in, you can't lie to Congress; it's illegal and you can be prosecuted.
July 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I recall correctly, there have been other occasions where the AG (even Gonzo) was not sworn in by the Judiciary Committee's chairman as a "courtesy" and a display of "respect" for the AG's position as the chief legal officer. Heh, how ironic.
They all know making false statements is on par with perjury (felony / 5 years). I suspect when the AG has been sworn in during recent years, it was a matter of emphasizing the requirement for truthfulness and possibly a bit of theatrics for the public.
I'm not a lawyer, but the standards to prove perjury may be less rigid than for making false statements. Perjury, so I'm told, is not easy to prosecute and win. If this is true, maybe Conyers was being a little smarter than we think.
Any lawyers around that could address this?
July 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of you who are trash talking John Conyers don't know deuce about the man. You're only embarassing yourselves...
July 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really...we don't know about conyers...I'm not embarrassed at all and in fact, I am pleased to trash him and his neglect of the constitution and his duties to uphold it! How can you defend him and trash us when he has no willingness to enforce his committee's failures to enforce the law. maybe you are one of his lobbyists?
July 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink