7 ms·

What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?

apendleton 5y ago
Lying to Congress is a crime (distinct from perjury), but it's unusual for anyone to be tried for/convicted of it though. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is a (rare) recent example.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a lawyer.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the preceding and following sentences.
  - apendleton 5y ago
    Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's both.
i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and Flynn.
hh3k0 5y ago
For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company?
comeonseriously 5y ago
Absolutely nothing.
rudyfink 5y ago
"Law? What do I care about the law. Ain’t I got the power?” (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) Your question made me think of that quote. There are technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a crime), but the realist answer is, that unless Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very little.
misnome 5y ago
It's only blatantly false if you ignore the context that it was spoken in of talking about basic App review and not IAP commission. And plenty of wiggle room there, especially if the "same process applied to everyone" includes the stage "Have we negotiated a contract with them for an exception on this" Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the IAP context.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false. https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chinas-wechat-bypass-rules-former-app-review-chief-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.teleg...
tialaramex 5y ago
In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them? In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 5y ago
  Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic.

Lying to Congress is a crime (distinct from perjury), but it's unusual for anyone to be tried for/convicted of it though. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is a (rare) recent example.

hh3k0 5y ago
Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a lawyer.
- qwytw 5y ago
  Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the preceding and following sentences.
- apendleton 5y ago
  Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's both.

i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago

It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and Flynn.

hh3k0 5y ago

For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company?

comeonseriously 5y ago

Absolutely nothing.

rudyfink 5y ago

"Law? What do I care about the law. Ain’t I got the power?” (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) Your question made me think of that quote. There are technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a crime), but the realist answer is, that unless Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very little.

misnome 5y ago

It's only blatantly false if you ignore the context that it was spoken in of talking about basic App review and not IAP commission. And plenty of wiggle room there, especially if the "same process applied to everyone" includes the stage "Have we negotiated a contract with them for an exception on this" Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the IAP context.

mthoms 5y ago
Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false. https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chinas-wechat-bypass-rules-former-app-review-chief-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.teleg...

tialaramex 5y ago

In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them? In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Supermancho 5y ago
Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic.