WorldCom collapse spawns congressional posturing

Nando Times ^ | 7/10/02 | DALE McFEATTERS

[Jean S]

(July 10, 2002 2:52 p.m. EDT) - The scene has become the cliche of 2002: Solemn, once-respected corporate leaders facing a congressional committee and declining to answer question after question, even such basic queries as name and address, by invoking their right against self-incrimination.

It happened again Monday when the former two top officers of WorldCom, Bernard Ebbers and Scott Sullivan, appeared before the House Financial Services Committee. They looked both guilty and silly - and that's the whole point of what is a one-sided and inherently unfair process.

The members of Congress could accuse, and did, Ebbers and Sullivan of being greedy, cold-blooded crooks, knowing that their words were constitutionally protected. The Constitution says that lawmakers "shall not be questioned in any other place" for what they say in Congress, meaning that they can't be sued for slander or defamation.

However, if Ebbers and Sullivan had given misleading, evasive, willfully incomplete or dishonest testimony they could have faced criminal charges; it doesn't take much to arouse righteous congressional wrath, especially if the targets are inviting and it's an election year. And their testimony, of course, could be used in any subsequent legal proceeding against them. They face civil lawsuits and possibly criminal charges.

But they have one protection: The Bill of Rights and specifically the Fifth Amendment - no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Fifth Amendment is frequently denounced as "a legal technicality" by people who should know better. Among other "technicalities," it guarantees due process and outlaws double jeopardy. Just because that right is widely misunderstood doesn't make it any less of a right.

Such is the law that the Fifth Amendment cannot be selectively invoked; it must be invoked to any question Congress might ask, even the time of day.

Ebbers surprised Congress, and surely his lawyers, by giving a brief opening statement in which he protested his innocence and said he was proud of his work at WorldCom. Some committee members argued that by saying even that much he had waived his Fifth Amendment rights and may try to hold him in contempt of Congress.

As abusive as the process can be, hearings are vital to the congressional duties of fact-finding, law-making and legislative oversight. It outweighs the discomfiture of the witnesses - but not their rights. If Congress deems that testimony is still vital, it can always offer the witness immunity from prosecution.

In view of the tens of millions they made and the jobs and savings they caused to be lost, Ebbers and Sullivan are hardly sympathetic characters. They have a lot to answer for and at the appropriate time they will. However, they should not be ridiculed and humiliated for availing themselves of a fundamental American right.

[Hillary's Folly]

Embattled CEOs Take to the Street as Bush Pushes Corporate Welfare Reform

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[Mike Darancette]

The DemocRATS have to be happier than "Pigs in S&*t" the have managed to finally find something to get the peoples attention.

- Make a crisis out of the individual misdeeds of a very few.
- Pin it in the Republicans by some type of vague association.
- When Bush tries anything to address the matter say it is not enough.
- Insinuate that Bush is a crook anyway.
- Pass the word that it is going to get worse.
- Watch the Stock Market tank.

Who benefits from financial unrest at this time?

[palmer]

Some committee members argued that by saying even that much he had waived his Fifth Amendment rights and may try to hold him in contempt of Congress.

I laughed when I heard that "Mr Sullivan did it right" spoken by one of the lawyer-politicians. Ebbers might have mistakenly addressed that comment to the public, but I don't think the fifth ammendment mentions any restrictions on protestations of innocence. That part was probably made up by judges.

[O Neill]

Seems odd that so little about this allegedly unfair 'Congressional posturing' was heard in previous, theatrical Congressional inquiries!

What happened to that old standby: 'This is nation of laws, not of men!'.....?

[Randjuke]

Make a crisis out of the individual misdeeds of a very few

I think the times where we can say this is limited to a "very few" is past (depends on your definition I guess). Your opinion that the democrats will try to spin this in their favor is right on the money, regardless of where the fault lies.

[BubbaJunebug]

If you look at the market today, the democrat posturing...it looks as if they've found a drum to beat on.

Oh well

[O Neill]

I agree that this is far beyond the crimes of just a few. The culprit in this mess is 8 long years of Clintonian Fraud and Arthur Anderson accounting practices. If the American people (generally) get a whiff that the whole supposed economic prosperity of the Gay Nineties is based on nothing more substantial than Clintonian Fraud Allowed To Run Amok, there could be disastrous economic consequences ala 1929. THAT is what President Bush is concerned about and addressing head-on, IMHO