Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking on MSNBC: Hastert testifying before ethics committee!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:33 PM
Original message
Breaking on MSNBC: Hastert testifying before ethics committee!
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 12:34 PM by babylonsister
Good, brings the perverts back into the forefront.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
laylah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Under oath?
Or with special privilege that seems to come with being a corrupt Repub?

Jenn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I can't imagine why he wouldn't be, except for that little 'r' behind
his name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. No, it doesn't matter whether or not he is under oath...
if he lies to a congressional committee, he can be prosecuted; here is the law:
18 USC 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.
(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.
(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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. this is very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I would love this committee to release its findings pre-11/7, but
I'm not holding my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. *ahem*
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. i know nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Everytime I see him, I think of Mr. Limpet (no puns now!):
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Which ones are lying???
Several of the testifiers are saying Hastert, and presumably Hastert because his office knew. And then Hastert and one of his aides say they didn't...How can you prove which is which. And if the republicans have a majority in the committee guess who is going to be believed.

And isn't that something. Since the people who told Hastert's office are telling the truth they could be prosecuted for perjury. Typical republican actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC