HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ethics aside, is there an...

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:56 PM

 

Ethics aside, is there any real reason to be truthful with Congress, or even talk to them...

for that matter?

I'm almost 40, and I'm having trouble coming up with very many names of people in my lifetime who have faced real, substantial consequences for lying to Congress, ignoring subpoenas and other failures to cooperate with investigations, etc.

Combine the lack of real consequences with the perception that most Congressional inquiries are merely televised political grandstanding for future Presidential campaigns, and is it any wonder that even the guiltiest treat it more like a reality TV show than a constitutionally-mandated process that can have lifelong negative consequences for them?

This shit goes back to at least Iran-Contra, and I'm sure before that. Take some real freaking action on these criminals and maybe it would change things.

Frankly, based on the odds, anyone who's guilty would be stupid if they DIDN'T lie.

23 replies, 980 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ethics aside, is there any real reason to be truthful with Congress, or even talk to them... (Original post)
MadDAsHell Jun 2019 OP
Sherman A1 Jun 2019 #1
MadDAsHell Jun 2019 #4
Sherman A1 Jun 2019 #7
MadDAsHell Jun 2019 #10
Sherman A1 Jun 2019 #15
MadDAsHell Jun 2019 #21
Sherman A1 Jun 2019 #22
jberryhill Jun 2019 #2
mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #5
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #6
mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #13
jberryhill Jun 2019 #14
mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #16
jberryhill Jun 2019 #17
mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #19
jberryhill Jun 2019 #20
Celerity Jun 2019 #23
Kurt V. Jun 2019 #3
sop Jun 2019 #8
spanone Jun 2019 #9
MadDAsHell Jun 2019 #11
sarabelle Jun 2019 #12
Volaris Jun 2019 #18

Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:58 PM

1. Well,

There is that whole “Rule of Law” thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:03 PM

4. Which apparently doesn't apply to the majority of people who testify before Congress.

 

Because the amount of lying that occurs is epic compared to the % that actually have the rule of law applied to them and face consequences for those lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:12 PM

7. Refer you to post #2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:19 PM

10. So you're satisfied with consequences Trump admin officials have faced so far?

 

You were satisfied with the consequences faced by Bush officials too? How many went to jail again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:36 PM

15. Do not

Put either YOUR opinion or WORDS in my mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 21, 2019, 12:45 AM

21. Settle down. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 21, 2019, 05:17 AM

22. I would suggest the very same to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:58 PM

2. Michael Cohen is serving time for it

 


18 USC 1001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:03 PM

5. Do you have names of people who've served time JUST for Lying to Congress

per chance?

Cohen was in trouble for a bunch of other stuff, the Lying to Congress thing was just kinda tacked on at the end of things. Do we even know how much of his 3 years is specifically for the lying?

Honest questions, you usually seem well-informed, so ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:10 PM

6. Most people who lie to Congress do so to cover up other crimes

So, the fact that they're serving time for multiple crimes does not mean they got away with lying to Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:29 PM

13. I thought my question was pretty self-explanatory ...

I'm wondering if there's any names of people who ONLY lied to Congress, but didn't commit some other crime, who got punished for it to any significant degree?

As in, perhaps, lying in service of helping someone ELSE avoid being charged w/a crime.

As would likely be the case with someone like Hope Hicks.

Or upcoming with Felix Sater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:32 PM

14. Two months

 


Cohen got two months for it.

I’ll have to research the others. There was recently a thread on 18 USC 1001, but that also includes executive agencies, such as the FBI. So Martha Stewart is an example of that.

Here you go:

Sam Patten - 3 months probation, 500 hours community service, $5k fine

HR Haldeman - served 18 months

John Mitchell - served 19 months

Harvey Matusow - served 44 months

Other people have been charged, but not convicted and/or pardoned, including Roger Clemens and Cap Weinberger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:48 PM

16. So, seems like the OP's general point that the 'cost' is pretty minimal ...

Is fairly accurate, since we're going back to Watergate to find significant penalties.

Thanks for the info, btw

Do you know if anyone's gone to jail JUST for not appearing after a subpoena? Or for just general 'non-cooperation'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:22 PM

17. Contempt?

 


Yah, try Susan McDougal on for size.

The thing about contempt is that you stay locked up as long as you decide to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:35 PM

19. Wiki says you're incorrect ...

"Her refusal to answer "three questions" for a grand jury, on whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, led her to receive a jail sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. That made up most of the total 22 months she spent incarcerated."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:41 PM

20. Are you suggesting...

 

...that I incorrectly remembered something which happened thirty years ago? My god, how is that possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 21, 2019, 05:59 AM

23. Harvey Matusow

Never had heard of him, thanks for the tip

Harvey Matusow, 75, an Anti-Communist Informer, Dies

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/04/us/harvey-matusow-75-an-anti-communist-informer-dies.html

Harvey Matusow, a paid informer who named more than 200 people as Communists or Communist sympathizers in the early 1950's, only to recant and say he lied in almost every instance, died on Jan. 17 at his home in Claremont, N.H. He was 75. Nancy Graton, a friend, said the cause was complications of injuries suffered in an automobile crash on Jan. 2.

Mr. Matusow, who served 44 months of a five-year sentence for perjury in a federal penitentiary, created a sensation in 1955 when he revealed his many lies in his book ''False Witness'' (Cameron & Kahn). Some hailed it for exposing what they regarded as questionable tactics by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and other zealous anti-Communists.

''At long last, the shining truth about the false accusers, the half-truth artists, the professional fabricators, the prevaricators for pay is beginning to break up through the dark and ugly clouds of doubt they have so evilly blown up,'' said Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, a McCarthy target. But others remained convinced that Mr. Matusow had been telling the truth before his recantation. Attorney General Herbert Brownell called his reversal ''part of a concerted drive to discredit government witnesses.''

Mr. Matusow began in 1950 by giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation information he had obtained through his membership in the Communist Party. He became an aide to Senator McCarthy, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He also testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the Subversive Activities Control Board, the Ohio Un-American Affairs Commission and the Industrial Commission of Texas, among other bodies. In addition, he was a witness in court cases against those accused of being Communists.

Among those he accused of Communist sympathies were the State Department, CBS, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Young Women's Christian Association and the United Nations. He said there were 500 Communist teachers in the New York City school system, for which he was a paid consultant. His testimony resulted in the folk singer Pete Seeger's being cited for contempt of Congress.

Mr. Matusow's often wildly exaggerated approach was suggested by his assertion that The New York Times had 126 Communists on the staff that produced its Sunday sections; at a time that staff had 100 people. He later signed an affidavit disavowing his accusation against The Times.

snip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:00 PM

3. I'm old enough to be your dad. you are not wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:14 PM

8. I remember when the CEOs of all the tobacco companies sat before Congress and swore

their cigarettes didn't cause cancer and other diseases, even though internal research showed otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:18 PM

9. Michael Cohen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:22 PM

11. Sweet! Under Rethuglican rule 24 of the last 40 years, Michael Cohen is our big win? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:23 PM

12. No anymore. Thanks to the Trump administration with Barr leading the DOJ.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:30 PM

18. Maybe they should be audio only...no TV cameras.

The SC doesn't have this 'grandstanding" problem...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread