Here are a few people who’ve been found to have lied to Congress over the past half century or so, and what happened to them: Under a plea agreement in late August, Patten, an American, Washington-based lobbyist, pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist.
Nancy Pelosi thinks so, but the relevant statutes suggest she is wrong. Yesterday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress about Robert Mueller's objections to his summary of the special counsel's report.
Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.
That's despite the fact that it isn't just a federal crime to lie to Congress while under oath — considered the “general perjury" statute — it’s also illegal to make false statements to Congress even if you're not under oath.
Not quite. 18 USC 1621 makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for someone to lie under oath. He is guilty if he "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true." But the Supreme Court has held that the perjury statute does not apply to a statement that "is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication."
Later in the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) called Barr's explanation "masterful hairsplitting," which is not necessarily the same thing as a lying. What Barr told Crist was not helpful, candid, or forthcoming, and it created the misleading impression that Barr was "not aware of concerns," as Leahy put it. But Barr never actually said that.
The perjury statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, pretty clearly does not apply to Barr's April 9 testimony. Whether 18 USC 1001 applies is a closer call. But if we give Barr the benefit of the doubt, which is what he would get if he were actually prosecuted for lying to Congress, his "masterful hairsplitting" seems like enough to prevent a conviction.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a suit brought by the group show that "political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ's dismissal of claims in that case."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said other documents indicate Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center on or before that date.
In an exchange with Sen. Pat Leahy on Nov. 8, 2011, Holder admitted his May 3 testimony was inaccurate when he said he knew about Fast and Furious for a "few weeks." He later changed that to a "couple months."
He personally signed off on James Rosen's warrant. Holder's defenders say the statement is technically correct because he never meant to prosecute Rosen, only to find the leaker. If so, then he lied to a federal judge.
That the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on Department of Justice (DOJ) surveillance of reporters comes as no surprise. People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever.
Nadler already had rejected Barr's offer to read the less-redacted version because it applied only to a dozen House members and the deal "would not permit them to discuss it with other Members of Congress who all have top security clearances."
Stanford law professor Michael McConnell wrote in The Washington Post about the parallels between Barr and Holder. The Obama administration said disclosing information about executive decision-making would "inhibit the candor" of officials inside the administration. An assistant attorney general falsely told Congress the Obama administration was unaware of Fast and Furious -- a claim the administration had to pull back -- and Holder said he would provide the subpoenaed documents only if the committee agreed to close the investigation.
Holder defied a congressional subpoena to furnish documents about Operation "Fast and Furious," a program to attempt to trace gun trafficking along the southwest border that went awry. The House held Holder in contempt, but since Holder declined to indict himself, the controversy faded.
Barr, however, did forward the committee a less-redacted version of the report.
The White House resisted House subpoenas on other fronts, too.
Barr did testify last week before the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. He was set to appear before the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee, but then the committee demanded Barr take questions from staff lawyers as well as elected members. Barr balked.
Politico reports that Col. Earl Matthews, who on January 6 was serving as the top attorney to Maj. Gen. William Walker, then commanding general of the D.C. National Guard. The Colonel wrote a detailed 36-page letter to the House saying that General Charles Flynn and Lt.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.