5 ms·

I don’t get it. What could Pichai possibly gain from participating in this kind of theatrics?

by cirgue 8y ago

dmitrygr 8y ago
Not appearing to be giving the finger to congress, as it looked when he failed to show up to the last set of hearings? Pissing off congress is rarely a good idea.
- komali2 8y ago
  It's been a long time since Congress, who works for you and me, has in my opinion elucidated anything I didn't already know from one of these panels. I'm not sure why Congress thinks it can at the drop of a hat order a CEO to participate in their media theatrics, and then pitch a fit when the company says "he/she is busy, we're going to send our top legal expert, who should know about the stuff you're concerned with (law) anyway."
  - thetrumanshow 8y ago
    The difference, of course, is that it may be under oath, and you can purjure yourself before congress. That means what you think you know from things you read in the media might actually not be as truthy as what is said when someone has to sit down before a body that has the power to criminalize dishonesty. And its an important tool for government. There are very public scandals that the people want answers for. You may say it fits nicely with the expectations of office that elected officials might get to the bottom of things that may effect large groups of their constituents.
jameskegel 8y ago
Maybe he's paying one forward for favorable outcome regarding antitrust investigations. Cases like this don't appear overnight, and they take just as long to adjudicate.
jasode 8y ago
I wasn't the one that downvoted you because there's a common misunderstanding that appearing before Congress is an optional invitation and therefore the people choosing to do it must be mentally insane or stupid since there's nothing to gain from it. The reason people testify before Congress is because they ultimately have no choice. Congress has this nuclear option called a "subpoena"[1] to force you to appear. Now, with prominent people like CEOs and baseball celebrities, it never escalates to the point of issuing a formal subpoena and having Federal marshalls arrest and forcibly drag them into Congressional chambers. Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. Of course, the CEO can try some stalling tactics (e.g. talk to some Congress members "off the record", etc) to buy some time... but ultimately, he's going to have to face Congress sooner or later. The more promptly the requested witness willingly appears before Congress, the better it is for public perception. It's better if the CEO shows cooperation with Congress. The totally opposite tactic is for the CEO to show up and refuse to answer any questions by constantly pleading the 5th Amendment through the entire proceeding. That would look really really bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas
- tivert 8y ago
  > Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. If Congress subpoenas someone, can they also compel them to testify under oath, opening them up to charges of perjury?
  - QuotedForTruth 8y ago
    Yes of course. Just dont lie and you wont be open to charges of perjury. You can still plead the 5th amendment right to remain silent though if they are asking you something that implicates you in a crime.
    - 8y ago

I don’t get it. What could Pichai possibly gain from participating in this kind of theatrics?

by cirgue 8y ago

I don’t get it. What could Pichai possibly gain from participating in this kind of theatrics?

Not appearing to be giving the finger to congress, as it looked when he failed to show up to the last set of hearings? Pissing off congress is rarely a good idea.

komali2 8y ago
It's been a long time since Congress, who works for you and me, has in my opinion elucidated anything I didn't already know from one of these panels. I'm not sure why Congress thinks it can at the drop of a hat order a CEO to participate in their media theatrics, and then pitch a fit when the company says "he/she is busy, we're going to send our top legal expert, who should know about the stuff you're concerned with (law) anyway."
- thetrumanshow 8y ago
  The difference, of course, is that it may be under oath, and you can purjure yourself before congress. That means what you think you know from things you read in the media might actually not be as truthy as what is said when someone has to sit down before a body that has the power to criminalize dishonesty. And its an important tool for government. There are very public scandals that the people want answers for. You may say it fits nicely with the expectations of office that elected officials might get to the bottom of things that may effect large groups of their constituents.

jameskegel 8y ago

Maybe he's paying one forward for favorable outcome regarding antitrust investigations. Cases like this don't appear overnight, and they take just as long to adjudicate.

jasode 8y ago

I wasn't the one that downvoted you because there's a common misunderstanding that appearing before Congress is an optional invitation and therefore the people choosing to do it must be mentally insane or stupid since there's nothing to gain from it. The reason people testify before Congress is because they ultimately have no choice. Congress has this nuclear option called a "subpoena"[1] to force you to appear. Now, with prominent people like CEOs and baseball celebrities, it never escalates to the point of issuing a formal subpoena and having Federal marshalls arrest and forcibly drag them into Congressional chambers. Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. Of course, the CEO can try some stalling tactics (e.g. talk to some Congress members "off the record", etc) to buy some time... but ultimately, he's going to have to face Congress sooner or later. The more promptly the requested witness willingly appears before Congress, the better it is for public perception. It's better if the CEO shows cooperation with Congress. The totally opposite tactic is for the CEO to show up and refuse to answer any questions by constantly pleading the 5th Amendment through the entire proceeding. That would look really really bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas

tivert 8y ago
> Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. If Congress subpoenas someone, can they also compel them to testify under oath, opening them up to charges of perjury?
- QuotedForTruth 8y ago
  Yes of course. Just dont lie and you wont be open to charges of perjury. You can still plead the 5th amendment right to remain silent though if they are asking you something that implicates you in a crime.
  - 8y ago