I would love to respond to that point briefly, if I could, please. What we have done is to effectively immunize this against impeachability--immunize making false statements. And going back to the original question, I don't know. Maybe aggravated, first-degree murder with heinous, atrocious, and cruel conduct as aggravators--maybe that is still a high crime or misdemeanor. That remains to be seen. But keep in mind, particularly with the fact that they already set aside article I--and they have already said that that is out of bounds, as well, for impeachability. The Supreme Court has said pretty much nobody has standing to address that. What are we left with? And getting back to the question from Senator Lummis, this is a phenomenally dangerous precedent to have set here, specifically with regard to false statements, because what does that do to our oversight hearings, where we rely, routinely, on testimony provided under oath by Cabinet Secretaries and other administration officials? What does that do? What incentive structure does that create? What perverse incentives does that create for them to lie?
On the recordApril 17, 2024
Source
govinfo.govShare
More from Bill Lee
May 15, 2026
I think it’s really important that the courts will weigh in on this. The legislature has followed the authority and the process that they believe fairly and appropriately divides districts, as they have done for generations as has happened…
Dec 20, 2024
This is a problem to bring something like this up that could have, potentially, an economic impact on the U.S. Government of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. To rush something through like this at, literally, the final hour…
Apr 4, 2025
this amendment asks us to believe a lie, and the lie is that FEMA provides nonpartisan disaster relief. Until a few months ago, many of us hoped and expected that that would be the case. Alas, it was not. During a contentious election…





