Justice Officials Refuse To Take Oath Before Intelligence Briefing

WASHINGTON — A House intelligence committee meeting was abruptly terminated when Justice Department officials refused to be sworn in before briefing the lawmakers.

The officials had been expected to brief the committee Wednesday on the department's review of an internal CIA report on the 2001 shootdown of a plane over Peru that was carrying American missionaries. Two of the passengers were killed.

Officials are routinely sworn in before giving testimony at formal congressional hearings, but the meeting was billed as an informal briefing – which normally does not require taking an oath.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Justice employees "have previously briefed committee staff on this matter and were prepared to provide a similar informal briefing to committee members."

"We are unaware of any precedent for Department officials providing informal briefings to be placed under oath," she said.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the top Republican on the committee, questioned Wednesday why the Justice officials refused to be sworn in. "Why is Attorney General Eric Holder afraid of having Justice Department employees be required to tell the truth?" Hoekstra said.

Hoekstra said Justice's refusal to brief under oath is part of a "disturbing pattern that has emerged of the Obama administration refusing or finding reasons to refuse to share information with Congress."

Both the House and the Senate intelligence committees have advanced legislation that would require more intelligence disclosures to Congress, though the details of the bills differ. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the House legislation if it is passed.

Hoekstra has raised concerns about the CIA's handling of the Peru incident, saying the classified CIA report identified the names of personnel who misled Congress and obstructed a Justice Department investigation into whether criminal charges should have been filed in the case. The Justice Department in 2005 decided against filing charges.

Comments

[bluefire66]

uhm, What's wrong with the picture when a Justice official refuses to take the oath? The House intelligence committee needs to immediately turn it from an informal briefing to a formal congressional hearing and get passed the little technical issue. IMHO, if you refuse to take the oath, you are not about to tell the truth.

[johnr49]

Presumably that's why Karl Rove and Harriet Myers refused to testify under oath, and let's not forget that both George Bush and Dick Cheney refused to give sworn evidence before the 911 committee and only agreed to speak to them informally, together and in private with no recording devices present.

[bccmeteorites]

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out Holder's Office is trying to delicately balance, covering up for the previous administration while preserving some semblance of departmental dignity. Hoekstra needs to question previous administration officials to if he enjoys digging up graves at what may be now termed a political archaeological site.

[1differentdrummer]

Peter Hoekstra, now there's a gem. What are you Michigan people thinking of sending a clown like that to Congress?

[expatwing]

Are you familiar with his district? This district has had a Dem represent them for a mere 18 years total since 1855! As Hoekstra is Dutcher than dutch and raised and educated in Holland I'd be hard pressed to say another Republican even has a chance at that seat.

[johnr49]

What an insult to the Dutch, the vast majority of whom are really nice people.

[msgirlintn]

Hoekstra: pot meet kettle. Incident happened in 2001. That was under Bush. Repubs haven''t wanted anybody to testify about anything else that happened under their watch and under Bush before.

[GrainOSand]

Hhmmm, on the surface this does not seem like transparency. I can understand the stated push-back of "not normally swearing in" being the reason, but...if you are telling the truth, what's the big deal? The truth does not change, and levels of professionalism and thoroughness of presentation should not change based on oath status (there can be no excuse of “If I had known I was going to be under oath I would have brought the other truth”). If one is avoiding revealing the unvarnished truth then I could see why one would not desire to be under oath when one gives their account of whatever. However, for this president, that would stand inconsistent with that advertised, thus I am left to ponder (because I still believe he has the right stuff) what it is I do not know about this story. I could speculate, but I think it is probably best to maintain a position of flexibility where it concerns these matters of good governance and government having the honor dignity and decency to not run afoul of its expressed purpose for existence, its decreed righteousness, and its ballyhooed and bellowed (from the rooftops to the mountaintops Sigmund) gloriousness.

It seems -- it could go either way. Adaptability, agility, flexibility, and diversification remain the call. Flow free! Be not stagnant dirty water clinging to time and place, or ideological embrace that blurs vision, fosters superstitions, and produces senseless repetitions of past political blunders, making one stop and wonder.

[lkim65]

Well then next time instead of making it an informal briefing, make it a formal one and have them take an otah. Who wants to bet they won't then either??

[Drjimmy72296]

Why is anyone defending these guys? Why is the answer to every criticism, "W was worse?" Of course he was. He was the worst president in history. But I fail to see how that has any bearing on Obama admin DOJ officials refusing to be sworn in for a briefing. So they can't testify if they have to tell the truth? Considering that they may be trying to cover up a murder here, how is lying after swearing to the tell the truth on a book of fairy tales worse?

[BruceHNV]

A briefing is not testimony, and has never historically implied that briefers might face perjury charges if their statements are even slightly in error or inexact - hence, briefings result in a freer exchange if information. If you are going to swear in briefers, be ready to have them say NOTHING that they cannot prove if called upon to do so - in other words, they would have to prepare for briefings that same way a witness would prepare for sworn testimony in court.

This essentially guts the utility of briefings. And Hoekstra knows this. His "puzzlement" over why they would be reluctant to be sworn under the circumstances is feigned and utterly specious. While Republicans cry "foul!" at the idea of the CIA being investigated because it would make agents afraid to do their jobs, here's Hoekstra creating an einvironment wherein agents are required to be nervous about how they do their jobs.

[moongal6]

Thank you for your informative and succinct comments. This seems to be R's grandstanding yet, again. All that feigned outrage and indignation.
Ya gotta love it.

[democracy7]

Thank you for explaining. Yet another attempt of the far right to erase the credibility of those on the left.

[bccmeteorites]

AN informal beifeing does not reuire swearing in. This is just crackpot political pandering for the cameras and microphones. Every once in a while a politican needs to make headlines to " send a piece of meat to constituents".

[StillAmused]

Hoekstra said Justice's refusal to brief under oath is part of a "disturbing pattern that has emerged of the Obama administration refusing or finding reasons to refuse to share information with Congress." ?

Did Hoekstra only recently emerge from an eight-year-long coma?
.

Oh... forgot.

Republican.

[Drjimmy72296]

I fail to see how Hoekstra's hypocrisy has any bearing on this. The DOJ sent officials up to the Hill, apparently to lie. When they were told they had to promise to tell the truth they couldn't testify? What the hell is up with that? Why aren't Democrats alarmed by this?

[StillAmused]

"Apparently to lie" ?

Presume much?

Your reading assignment (since you missed it on the first pass):

"Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Justice employees "have previously briefed committee staff on this matter and were prepared to provide a similar informal briefing to committee members."

"We are unaware of any precedent for Department officials providing informal briefings to be placed under oath," she said."

If the posturing hypocrite wants sworn testimony, let him move for a full committee investigation. You won't see THAT, considering the vintage of the original incident... no telling what ELSE might come spilling out.

[democracy7]

Does Hoekstra have any other links in this so called pattern? Or is it once again more allegations without substance.

[Solja]

Watch how KlusterFaux spins this one tomorrow. They'll say Obama is hiding the truth from Congress, even though the truth would probably set Cheney's arse on fiyah!

[MarcusT]

"Is hiding the truth" Spin?

[Billar]

Lies...You Lie Hoekstrfa.

[sandiegowoman]

Is this a joke or what? After 8 long agonizing bush years of refusing, can't remembering and outright lying? Anyone check to see if these people were bush holdovers? How could anyone new be familiar with this incident that happened in 2001? Give me a break!

[keepemhonest]

R O V E won't even show up to be put under oath ... this is just a show from the Droolers in Congress.

[keepemhonest]

Karl Rove won't even show up to be put under oath ... this is just a show from the Droolers in Congress.

[DustinTime]

Can you say... cover up?

[keepemhonest]

do you mean "cover up" from the W Administration?

[KIVPossum]

Absolutely. I think Obama is covering a lot up out of necessity. If he allowed the public to know everything that went on in the Bush administration, there would be revolt.

[stuclark]

It has long amused me that "taking the oath" guaranteed receiving the "truth". "Truth" is an interpretation of experience, whether testifier or listener. Even "facts" can be distorted by the latest in technology. So, it is better to carefully cross-examine and be smart enough to remember what the testifier has said in the past, i.e., what level of integrity has previously been displayed.

[BruceHNV]

"Oath" does not create truth. It merely attaches the potential for felony penalties for misspeaking.