Sestak-gate: You can affect possible impeachment
Congressional office accepts reports of misbehavior from public
The heat is building on Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and the Obama White House to “come clean” over a conversation the congressman has described – repeatedly and on the record – as a job offer in exchange for dropping his primary campaign against White House favorite Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., which if true could be a crime.
And a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has been raising questions about Sestak’s comment from the beginning, noted that just because Obama’s Justice Department has refused to investigate, there still could be an accounting.
Officials revealed the Office of Congressional Ethics accepts allegations and details of misbehavior from the public in a section allowing for “public input” about members of Congress. It also provides an e-mail option for information that comes from the public.
Harold
[You may recall when Clinton was President that a number of his associates were imprisoned because they lied to federal investigators.]
You may recall when Bush was President that members of his administration outed a CIA agent and lied about it, yet no one was punished other than Scooter losing his license to practice law.
You may also recall that when Clinton was president, the fascist right-wing Republican Congress had Susan McDougal put in prison for 22 months for REFUSING to lie about Clinton.
You may recall when Clinton was President that a number of his associates were imprisoned because they lied to federal investigators. Patriots need cause federal investigators to question Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. concerning his statements about being offered a “government job” if he dropped out of his campaign. Below I have enclosed information on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision that concerns penalties for (lying to federal investigators) pursuant to 18 USC 1001; including a possible 5-year prison sentence and fine for each false or misleading statement when questioned by the Feds.
Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa should be forced into this legal arena.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BROGAN v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998
Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.
Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “exculpatory no.” Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “exculpatory no” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, ___–including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117. His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress. Pp. 2—8.
96 F.3d 35, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.
If the Republicans every get subpoena power, Obama needs to just claim executive privilege and not let anyone testify. It worked for Bush when he politicized the justice department (among other things).