Just read a story about Roger Clemens getting indicted for lying to and "obstruction" of Congress.

I'm not a fan of Clemens. And I'm sure there's a law on the books to the effect that one can't obstruct Congress.

But my question is a bit different: should it be against the law to lie to a Congressional committee.

Or, if you want to get even more radical, why should a Congressional committee have the power to issue subpoenas?

Discuss.

---

Presidents do it all the time.

Let me add, so do heads of major corporations. I'd love to see the people who did scare tactics to get Congress to vote for the bailouts get indicted for lying.

---

Lying to congress is one thing, lying while under oath before a congressional committee is another thing.

i find it rather ironic that they don't enjoy being lied to. politicians=liars. nuff said.

This.

Should lying under oath generally be a crime, then?

Or is there something special about doing so when Congress administers the oath. Should Congress be able to have oath-breaking enforced more than the rest of us?

Perjury is essentially lying under oath. But there is a difference between lying under oath to a court of law (to which under our constitution gives the judicial power) and lying under oath to you or me (to whom it doesn't). I can sue you for breach of your promise if we have a contractual relationship, but that's a civil matter not a criminal one the way perjury is.

Why is lying under oath to Congress more like lying to the court under oath than it is like lying to me under oath? And should it be?

I don't think the answer is at all obvious here. And I personally would argue that criminalizing lying to congress, under oath or otherwise, is the wrong side of the fence. For two reasons.

First, Congress, unlike me, has an intimate relationship with the executive "enforcement" wing of the state -- they make the laws that enable enforcement of their legislative will. In short, they can by the nature of what they do put the threat of force behind their will -- they don't need yet another threat-making ability of "obstruction".

Think of what would happen if someone refuses to testify to Congress under oath. Can you say "no, thanks, sorry, not today" without being thought of having something evil to hide? I don't think so. The only people who do that are criminals and unpatriotic slugs. And Congresscritters, like the bullies they are, like all bullies, are going to encourage with their control over the big elevated chairs and the ears of every network microphone for us to think just that.

When an essential part of political participation should be the ability to say "none of your fucking business." If I'm a criminal, it's not the legislature's job to bring me to justice and make me talk. It's the judicial system.

Second, Congressional committees aren't "fact finders" the way the courts are. They aren't bound by rules of civil and criminal procedure, or by the Federal Rules of Evidence. They are politicians with agendas. They are not disinterested appliers of the law. Their interest is not with applying the law to the facts, their interest is making the laws. Usually in lines with their particular biases and ideologies and interests.

Judges are not unbiased or free of these problems of course. But unlike congresscritters, they don't decide civil cases, much less criminal ones, as advocates. Congressmen and Congresswomen do.

Morally, should I be expected to tell the truth. Sure. To everyone.

Legally, should I be subject to jail if I lie under oath. No.

Not unless the person I'm lying to is "someone special". Like a court.

IMO, Congressional committees fail to meet the basic "someone special" requirement.

Not unless your definition of someone special is "fertilizer producer."

---

So in a nutshell, Wade, you would argue that Congress should not be able to hand out subpoenas because it is not, in fact, a judicial body? I can buy that argument. When were the first congressional subpoenas handed out, and has this practice ever been challenged (and defended) in court?

---

On the historical question, I do not know. Though "lying to the king" has long been considered a crime. And I don't think it has been limited to lying to the king when he acts in his judicial capacity. :)

As for your first question. I'm about 96 percent there. I am open to people explaining why "not just" judicial bodies should have subpoena power (which is part of the reason I started the thread). But I don't know what the other grounds would be.

Because it seems to me they would have to get past one of the big reasons we have separation of powers and of functions in the American system: namely, that those who make rules like to set up rules so that they get their own way.

---