Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I know, I suck. But a serious question: [View all]grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)189. Then we should let a court decide as you suggest in your answer, otherwise,
he is outside of the law.
This is lying to Congress about violating the Constitutional rights of all Americans, not a traffic ticket.
There were other answers:
"I cannot answer that question without revealing classified information"
"I need to answer that in a closed session"
"I need to consult with my lawyer"
"I can neither confirm or deny"
"I'm cannot answer that question"
etc.
U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 47 § 1001
18 U.S. Code § 1001
(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.
Also, regarding perjury trap, I would argue the doctrine does not apply:
756
Perjury CasesSpecial Problems and Defenses -- Perjury Trap
The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges. See Gershman, The Perjury Trap, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624 (1981). The defense requires that the defendant show the false answer was illegally procured by the government. Thus, when the grand jury is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply. United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162, 1168 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 377 (1995); United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1991).
Perjury CasesSpecial Problems and Defenses -- Perjury Trap
The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges. See Gershman, The Perjury Trap, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624 (1981). The defense requires that the defendant show the false answer was illegally procured by the government. Thus, when the grand jury is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply. United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162, 1168 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 377 (1995); United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1991).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
265 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
IF he were caught in a Lie before Congress...you can BET the Republican run House would
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#1
Yes...complicated...you know....not exactly black and white...kinda grey...
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#103
HE admitted lying. There is no doubt that he lied. He has a boss, he should be fired, but he hasn't
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#91
Its not? They why isn't he up on charges for lying to a Republican Congress?
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#27
IF YOUR contention were absolutely true as you contend....then he would
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#33
If the issue would harm the military and not the civil government, the Republicans would allow
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#51
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China....do YOU seriously think
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#88
The Republican Party, like YOU, approves of the ubiquitous, pervasive surveillance state.
Maedhros
Jan 2014
#97
The only posts I ever see from you are bashing critics of either the NSA or drone murder.
Maedhros
Jan 2014
#131
Of for gawdsake! The man knew the truth yet replied in what he says was "the least untruthful" way.
delrem
Jan 2014
#135
You follow a strange logic. He isnt up on charges for lying to a Republican Congress
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#124
NO you should know better...you think Republicans would miss THAT chance
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#48
It's pointless discussing anything with a person who insists on rejecting uncontested facts. /nt
Marr
Jan 2014
#63
Only four senators - total - voted against Obama's nominee for US Trade Rep last year
MannyGoldstein
Jan 2014
#81
NO as I said...if it WERE not in DISPUTE ....he would be up on charges...
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#211
why would you ever believe the government when it talks about its spy program? nt
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#4
'Im not able to answer that question for national security reasons, but...
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2014
#31
Nope. No handcuffs for refusing to tell a lie. You're right that this sort of non-answer
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2014
#41
No, he had a choice between an honest answer that did not reveal classified info and lying.
merrily
Jan 2014
#130
As I explained before, the normal, legal thing to do in that situation is to ask to discuss the matt
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#102
There is a chance that the Supreme Court will rule that the facts in any case involving the metadata
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#147
He could have immediately asked that the discussion continue in a closed session.
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#55
For all realistic purposes, it was Wyden who revealed classified information during that hearing.
merrily
Jan 2014
#138
Then we should let a court decide as you suggest in your answer, otherwise,
grahamhgreen
Jan 2014
#189
It's like saying if a bank robber answers no to a robbery he committed that he should not be
grahamhgreen
Jan 2014
#265
So you are rationalizing his lying. Interesting who all comes to his defense. nm
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#125
You are trying to justify his lies. He later admitted he lied. How different is that
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#227
Of course Clapper is part of the authoritarian power structure and Snowden is merely
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#245
Or fourth possibility...Clapper didn't answer correctly....because he hadn't seen them
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2014
#37
Wow, what lengths some go to to defend this conservative authoritarian that is the
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#126
He is silent on our government's lying/fabricating evidence trails to arrest Americans
woo me with science
Jan 2014
#14
Oh lordy....you certainly suck at civics! If Clapper lied to Congress, then the CONGRESS needs to
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#24
The head of the IRS wasn't fired, Manny, except in FoxNoozland. He retired. So why didn't Wyden
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#47
Exactly, Manny, and thank you proving my point. Miller resigned and retired. Federal employees
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#64
No...Fox News was upset that he wasn't fired...but allowed to retire as planned...
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#174
Nonsense..... cite the federal reg that says there's a term limit to an Acting Director of the IRS.
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#179
You are not getting one. I just made you prove my point that Miller was retiring, anyway,
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#212
I know...his resignation and his retirement date were exactly the same, and
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#164
Well, if progressive heroes like Wyden prefer to spend their political chits
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#180
Or maybe Wyden realized that was a question he wasn't supposed to ask during the
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#165
Exactly ... and if Wyden is fine with it, why isn't Manny calling him out too?
JoePhilly
Jan 2014
#183
r.e. the nevermind part: the OP mentioned that as a possibility, then pulled back.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2014
#203
Like a bankster owned police agency commissined by banksters to keep the government
Zorra
Jan 2014
#95
I think mutual orchestrations for mutual political ends overlook lying. We CAN'T believe it.
ancianita
Jan 2014
#78
Manny, the President isn't involved with a charge of contempt of Congress or
Agnosticsherbet
Jan 2014
#79
"It is like they want to bitch about it but don't want to do anything about it."
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2014
#162
I think Congress doesn't give a damn if the guy lied. I think it is politics and power.
Agnosticsherbet
Jan 2014
#221
Obama is Clappers boss, so he could fire him. Clapper lied to to Congress so they
neverforget
Jan 2014
#129
The truth is that no one in Congress considers it 'lying' when intelligence secrets are involved.
randome
Jan 2014
#194
Randome, you're wrong. Ron Wyden is a member of congress, and he knows he was lied to.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2014
#195
I saw that. It won't be enough. Obama quashed Occupy and he is a slave to the NSA.
randome
Jan 2014
#178
The concern is that Obama will tell us "the least untruthful" things that he wants to
MannyGoldstein
Jan 2014
#172
Fine. Don't trust anyone. Continue to be paranoid even when you get what you asked for.
randome
Jan 2014
#177
Like four year olds interpret it, "lie" means say something I don't agree with
treestar
Jan 2014
#198
I'm not really sure that the matter of any of us "believing" what is said
NorthCarolina
Jan 2014
#242
I truly wish the President would tell us why the the NSA thing is so good and important.
marble falls
Jan 2014
#258