On Lying to Congress : US Code (penalty/actual law)

[Solly Mack]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally


(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.

-snip-

(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.

[Greybnk48]

1. kick for educational value n/t

[Solly Mack]

2. Thank you. Hopefully, Gonzales will be educated by Congress on this law

Educated all the way to prison. :)

[wordpix]

3. thanks

[Solly Mack]

10. Welcome.

[Justice Is Comin]

4. Not only that, it's easier to prove than perjury.

Far more convictions have been obtained on this law than on perjury.

It is called the False Statements Act and you do not have to prove intent to deceive.

Perjury requires:

An oath.

A lie.

It must be a material fact.

You must know it is a lie.

And you willfully told the lie with intent to deceive.

[Solly Mack]

12. I'm keeping my fingers crossed

for some more convictions under this law

[hang a left]

5. That's right!

Now let us watch it's enforcement

[Solly Mack]

13. I'm hoping...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Thanks for posting this

I've read this before but couldn't recall the exact details and hadn't taken the time to look it back up.

You get a :kick: &R for saving me some digging. :)

[Solly Mack]

11. LOL! You're welcome!

I can journal this and save me time later too.

[Oilwellian]

7. Laws are a thing of beauty

:kick:

[Solly Mack]

14. I think so

:)

[Toots]

8. "to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch,"

Snow is saying the Unitary Executive is not "within the jurisdiction"......

[Solly Mack]

9. Snow is full of poopie too

but we'll have to see how it all plays out

[dkofos]

15. Unless the republican party is in power!!

[Solly Mack]

16. There is that

unfortunately....they have stacked the outcome in their favor (courts, etc)

[SoCalDem]

17. All I know is that Martha suffered public humiliation (gleefully administered)

actual jail time, house arrest and forfeiture of the leadership of a company she built from the ground up.. and all she did was "lie to the FBI"..not even under oath..

[Solly Mack]

21. Precisely

but the FBI counts as it falls under one of the branches...just as the CIA and NSA would count...just as the DHS would count...if you lied to them...

[Justice Is Comin]

18. This is the law Martha Stewart was

nailed under.

Convictions result 18 times more than perjury.

[Solly Mack]

22. Yep. Correct

[Time for change]

19. Thanks for posting

Seems to me that someone ought to be prosecuting Bush and Cheney under this law right now. Hell with going after Gonzolez -- when getting rid of weeds you don't just mow over them, you have to pull them out by the root, otherwise they'll just grow back. Get rid of Ashcroft, we get Gonzolez in his place. Get rid of Gonzolez, no telling who we'll get.

Am I misreading this, or does the law not say anything about having to be "under oath" in order for lying to Congress to constitute a felony?

[Solly Mack]

20. No oath required - it's a felony period, to lie to Congress

and yes, Bush and Cheney both should have been held under this law

[loudsue]

44. Bush's "16 words" were a lie to congress. The SOTU is a speech (report) to Congress.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all lied to congress, and even the republicans know it. It is way past time to impeach bush & cheney's sorry asses, and Rumsfeld needs to be imprisoned. Him giving up his post doesn't mete out proper punishment for his crime.

And gonzo, the HEAD of Justice, lied his ass off to Congress & it is obvious. The whole lot of them need to serve jail time. These are criminal offenses, and if Martha Stewart has to pay with jail time, there shouldn't be a double standard for people who are making HUGE decisions for the whole country.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Solly Mack]

45. 100% agree

Frankly, I want them to die of old age in prison

[ejbr]

23. Sigh

if the public only held these bastards to the same standard as everyone else, this might be good news.:-(

[Solly Mack]

24. People do seem to hold the government up as mythical gods

almost divine in character

I've heard people say things like - If the government did it then they must have had a good reason
and - We don't know everything the government knows, so we can't judge how they act

It seems, to me anyway, that the second a human decides to run for office - and is elected to office - that person suddenly goes from being human to somehow above it all..their character becomes beyond approach, they have good reasons for the most heinous of acts,they are somehow better than the rest of us, deserving of better health-care, better protection and better wages...because they somehow deserve all that just by becoming "government"

while at the exact same time...those in government speak on how America is a government of the people...but then the people are held to a different standard, as you've said, and given less for the doing

[ejbr]

35. Interesting point....

however, I was not going that far (although, as you pointed out, I could have), I was only referring to the Bush administration and how the public lets them get away with the most unbelievable shit. Although laws have been written for ALL citizens, the public does not seem to want to hold this particular administration to the same scrutiny and consequences.

In essence, Bill Clinton's blowjob appears to be more devestating to our republic than treason, war crimes, subverting the constitution and breaking our laws. Therefore, I cannot imagine gonzo lying to congress will amount to anything. I even remember one of the Democratic frontrunners (Obama) giving cover to this administration while being interviewed (with all the scandals, I forget how, but it was something that the reality-based community believes is self-evident). I was disgusted and dismayed that one of the Dems's "shining stars" would pander to these criminals. With this regime having these types of "adversaries", it is no wonder so many people are hoodwinked.

Yes, his approval rating is abysmal, but shouldn't there be a gazillion people marching on washington with pitch forks by now? With all their crimes, why is it only a few of us that take their voter suppression and acts of voter fraud seriously? After 6 years of them thumbing their nose at righteousness and getting away with it, I no longer expect good to prevail, even with Dems in charge of Congress.
:argh:

[Solly Mack]

43. For some inexplicable reason...has to be faith since

there is no evidence to the contrary, I still have hope...even while believing that nothing will come of it either. I kick myself for it too...that damn bit of hope.

I'm beyond disgusted by it all...the whole thing - not just the DOJ scandal

I mainly posted the law so people could have a reference handy

[ejbr]

47. And we THANK you

for posting it! :) It reminds us that we are a land of laws not men.

[loudsue]

46. You're right. They're going to try to steal 2008 elections as well.

Only this time, they're going to try even HARDER, because they can't afford any more investigations. If the Dems don't preempt the type of election theft that has been going on for the last 7 years, they're going to find themselves holding their "hearings" in the basement again.

And if the DON'T take care of our elections, and DO IT NOW, they phucking DESERVE to be in the basement. Right now they've got the tools to fix the problem. But they only have a few more months to do that. And it's not just them....it's also up to US, we, the people, to make sure that every State in the union has paper ballots, hand counted in a TRANSPARENT manner. We have to start DEMANDING it from our State legislatures. And we have to do it NOW!! We can't wait until 3 or 4 months while the elections are heating up. Government moves at a glacier's pace (pre-global-warming glaciers), and we have to be on this RIGHT NOW!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[ejbr]

48. No, YOU are right...

:) we must keep up the fight. What is disheartening, however, is that hundreds of fellow citizens have sworn on the bible that their vote was surpressed or taken away and even the courts don't believe them. Meanwhile, the mainstream media treats our loss as "nothing to see here folks, keep moving", giving the few (criminals) more credibility than the hundreds of law-abiding citizens. It is maddening!

[mmonk]

25. The only problem just using that without being under oath is

it will all be reduced as partisan bickering over facts as far as the general public goes. Don't allow testimony without being under oath please.

[Solly Mack]

27. True - and everyone should testify under oath

but this is the law they can be charged under - whether they are under oath or not

it doesn't state you have to be under oath or not to be charged , so they could be charged for lying to Congress with or without being under oath

but being under oath and with a transcript is key anyway

because it would become a case of bickering over facts and who said what exactly and how it was said and the intent being lost...I can clearly see a republican telling a democratic member of Congress that "they heard wrong" or "you're mischaracterizing what was said"



the snipped portion reads:

(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

I wonder how, if charged criminally, people within Bush INC would play that

[mmonk]

31. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're posting.

I'm just wondering how it all will play out.

[Solly Mack]

33. I understand...and that is what I wonder as well

I just wanted to post the law so people can have it as a reference

My hopes are one thing...how this will play out is quite another.

[Critters2]

29. The law is very clear, and doesn't stipulate being under oath

A lie is a lie, and Rove and Gonzales should be charged if they lie.

[helderheid]

26. THANK YOU SOLLY!

[Solly Mack]

28. You're welcome,helderheid!!

Now I'm holding out hope Gonzales will be charged

[symbolman]

30. A BIG K&R

Let some JAILTIME get these bastards Talking and Walking..

Screw this 'Spending more time with the Family, thanks for letting me RIP YOU OFF' crap, JAIL THEM..

I wish Leahy would just throw Gonzo's Ass in the CAN, and get the ball ROlling NOW, TODAY.

THanks for this Solly Mack, really appreciated, send this to Keith Olbermann if you will, this needs to be spread far and wide!

[Solly Mack]

32. Welcome, symbolman

I'd love to see them behind bars - for natural life

[TahitiNut]

34. EVERYONE should brush up on the legal concept of "materiality" upon which this law hinges.

A material fact or a materially false statement is the focus of all such laws and regulations, including those regarding financial statements. (As a former internal auditor, I can assure you this is NOT a mere 'technicality.')

Like much of law, it relies upon the fictitious "reasonable person" - so BEWARE. :evilgrin:

Read ...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m021.htm

[Solly Mack]

36. And I'd wager that will be the focus

and you're right..always beware the "reasonable person" - factor? clause? loophole? - way out?

all of the above?

lol

Thank you, TN

The more we know the better we know

[rateyes]

37. Well, since the State of the Union Address...

is a document required by the Constitution to be sent to Congress...the lies Bush put into the address to justify the Iraq War seem to fit the bill. Another high crime added to the list for impeachment charges.

[Solly Mack]

40. I agree

[WorldResident]

38. One, the President can pardon anybody he wants

Second, the word used is consistent with the applicable rules (I don't know what these are). The corollary that comes to mind is if a woman lies to an FBI agent about why she can't go on a date, that would not be a crime. So there are some limits to having to tell the truth to Congress. What they are I'm not entirely sure about.

[Solly Mack]

41. Yes - a President can pardon anyone except for impeachment

and cabinet members can be impeached

and I have no comment on the things you don't know or are not entirely sure of

[texpatriot2004]

39. Must be why Gonzo was so shaky at his first press conf on this

matter...

looks like he clearly broke the law and can go to prison.

[Solly Mack]

42. Looks that way to me too...but well....you know

sadly :(

[Karenina]

49. Kicking to turn that frown

upside down! :loveya:

[Solly Mack]

56. awww

Thanks! :D

:loveya:

[bobthedrummer]

50. KICK.

[bobthedrummer]

51. A Tony Snow kick

[treestar]

52. Kick

:kick:

[bobthedrummer]

53. The GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan got caught at it today-kick

[bobthedrummer]

54. Another kick

[bobthedrummer]

55. kick