The Horror

[VoodooAce]

Anybody see the debacle that is the US Congress yesterday?

So-called distinguished Senators making spectacles of themselves as they each tried to upstage the other by creating the soundbite we'd all here while we ate dinner.

I don't like Kenneth Lay, he's very likely a criminal, and maybe even deserved to be humiliated in front of the nation. Still, I was embarrassed.

it all seemed so unprofessional and obvious.

Heck, they all KNEW he wouldn't be testifying, so they took the opportunity to blast him for an hour before they even ASKED....

 

[VoodooAce]

....and I learned something new Sunday.

If you answer ANY questions before a Congressional committee, you have to answer them all.

Once you do answer a question, you can't plead the 5th on ANY subsequent questions, related or not.

Normally, you are allowed to plead the 5th for one question, and still answer others, correct?


Anyway, I'm not for or against it, just curious as to why this is. Certainly there's a reason for it.

 

[Jimcat]

The speeches made at the Congressional hearing served two purposes. One was the fairly obvious goal of being seen to denounce Enron's management. All of these guys will have to face a re-election campaign at some point, and who wants to be seen as being "soft on Enron"? Cynical, but an old and legitimate political maneuver.

The second purpose was to try to draw the witness into speaking by the only means at their disposal: verbal and emotional persuasion. If a witness isn't talking, sometimes you can push the right buttons and get them to open their mouth when they feel they just have to respond. Again, it's been used in courtrooms for a long time, and sometimes it works. Anyone could see that it was highly unlikely that Lay would allow himself to be drawn out in that fashion, but there's no harm in trying. If I were a Senator, I'd have done the same thing.

 

[VoodooAce]

I suppose.

I just felt (but then how would I know, huh?) that they were far mor interested in the first goal rather than the second.

We all know I'm a gullible sap, but I really believe he (Lay) wishes he could talk and I felt for him sitting there and taking it like he did.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
....and I learned something new Sunday.

If you answer ANY questions before a Congressional committee, you have to answer them all.

Once you do answer a question, you can't plead the 5th on ANY subsequent questions, related or not.

Normally, you are allowed to plead the 5th for one question, and still answer others, correct?

That doesn't sound correct. Not doubting you, but it sounds fishy.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Now which party's hippocrits were vociferously yammering around 6-7 years ago that it would be abusive and "McCarthyesque" to require witness subpoened by congress to invoke the 5th amendment rights publicly on camera, rather than in a written statment submitted to the committee. Hmm, could it be those whose designation rhymes with rats.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Now which party's hippocrits were vociferously yammering around 6-7 years ago that it would be abusive and "McCarthyesque" to require witness subpoened by congress to invoke the 5th amendment rights publicly on camera, rather than in a written statment submitted to the committee. Hmm, could it be those whose designation rhymes with rats.

Hhhhmmm....

The Republicrats, eh?

At first I thought it had to be Democrats, but then you mentioned that part about hypocrites, so.....

Anyway, Lefty, I'm just a dumb a$$ liberal, you'll have to explain your meaning a little more clearly.

And I thought the same thing, Palehorse, when I first heard it. Wolf Blitzer brought it up and both of the Senators he was interviewing looked at him like he was explaing special relativity.

Then 2 subsequent guests confirmed that Wolfy was right afterall.

 

[Marzipan]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
. . .Normally, you are allowed to plead the 5th for one question, and still answer others, correct?

No, normally if you answer any question you have to answer anything. I have no idea where this interpretation of the 5th amendment comes from, but I know this is how it works. It's the same when you appear before a grand jury, and I assume it's the same in a criminal trial. Seems to me you should be able to plead the 5th on any question you feel it applies regardless of what you have to say about anything else. :crazyeyes:

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The democrats yaped for weeks that requiring persons implicated in the various Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals to publicly invocke the fifth rather that just send a letter sying they were going to do so would be abusive, unethical "McCarthyism".

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
We all know I'm a gullible sap, but I really believe he (Lay) wishes he could talk and I felt for him sitting there and taking it like he did.

I think that's what he wants everyone to believe.

The truth is that he took the money and ran. If he can avoid a criminal charge, then he's gotten away with one of the biggest fraud schemes in American business history.

Lay said that he didn't want the people to think he has something to hide. The truth is, he has nothing to hide because it has already been exposed. He used illegal and unethical business practices to inflate his company's stock and enrich himself at the expense of the stockholders and employees. The only question is whether he will get away with it.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The democrats yaped for weeks that requiring persons implicated in the various Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals to publicly invocke the fifth rather that just send a letter sying they were going to do so would be abusive, unethical "McCarthyism".

How ya doin', Pot? I'm the black kettle. Nice to meet you.

Come on, Lefty. Are you shocked that there are hypocrites in Washington? If things were reversed, you know full well, Republicans would invoke the same crap.

Just like if it were Dem's in office and Al Gore was in Tricky Dick Cheney's place, the GOP would be falling all over themselves trying to force Gore to release the minutes from a meeting the likes of which Cheney had with energy execs to formulate their money making, er, our energy policy.

I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you that Dem's aren't hypocrites. But I won't believe it if someone tells me there aren't GOP hyp's either.

 

[CurtSibling]

Now, chaps.

I'm a UK resident so excuse my ignorance of US
congressional tactics,
but going back to the first post...

"So-called distinguished Senators making spectacles of
themselves as they each tried to upstage the other by creating
the soundbite we'd all here while we ate dinner. "


What's this about a sound byte played while people eat their supper?

Please explain this governmental invasion of the dinner table.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
What's this about a sound byte played while people eat their supper?

Please explain this governmental invasion of the dinner table.

It's not an invasion, it's an invitation.

Strange as it may seem, some Americans are so wedded to the idiot box that they leave it on during family mealtimes.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Now, chaps.

I'm a UK resident so excuse my ignorance of US
congressional tactics,
but going back to the first post...

"So-called distinguished Senators making spectacles of
themselves as they each tried to upstage the other by creating
the soundbite we'd all here while we ate dinner. "


What's this about a sound byte played while people eat their supper?

Please explain this governmental invasion of the dinner table.

The big thing in politics for the last 20 or so years has been to get off a good, catchy one-liner.

Something that the evening or 6 O'clock news will be able to show. If its too long, it won't be shown.

If it is short enough, and catchy enough, it will be on every channel's news during our dinner.

Both Reagan and Clinton were masters of this. Duhbya tries but always comes across like Jerry Springer or, since 9/11, a WWF announcer.

 

[CurtSibling]

Amazing!
So they give catchy political sound bites at tea-time TV!
I thought a catchy party policy would be more in order...

They'd never get away with that tactic in the UK...
In Scotland, when a party political broadcast comes on the fool's
lantern, the standard reaction is to change channel quick before
terminal boredom sets in!

Most people in the UK are suspicious of the political figures,
a good way of keeping democracy healthy!

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Amazing!
So they give catchy political sound bites at tea-time TV!
I thought a catchy party policy would be more in order...

They'd never get away with that tactic in the UK...
In Scotland, when a party political broadcast comes on the fool's
lantern, the standard reaction is to change channel quick before
terminal boredom sets in!

That's just the point. The news knows it has to be quick and catchy, or else we'll change channels. The politicians know that the news knows this, and thus works towards that goal. Generally you can't get the channel changed before some politician is finished stating their 10 word solution to all the world's ills.


Fool's lantern? Must equal idiot box. Now I know what a fool's lantern and a ned are. Not the best thing the Internet has brought me, but the signifignace should not be laughed at.