I'd be more surprised if they didn't lie, frankly. Lying during congressional testimonies and confirmations is a time honored tradition that applies in nearly every case. I can name plenty of cases where people either lied outright or lied by omission, but can't name any significant repercussions anybody experienced for lying. Ergo, I don't see why people would tell the truth that's disadvantageous to them, rather than lies that are advantageous.
> Lying during congressional testimonies and confirmations is a time honored tradition that applies in nearly every case
No, it isn't. This statement falls in the same category as "everyone commits insider trading; I should buy out-of-the-money options." You can recount specific cases because they remain exceptions.
But it is. Here's how things typically go: person in front of the Congress has a certain political affiliation, perceived or official. So one party (their own) runs down the clock asking them ultra-softball questions they can easily answer truthfully, while the other side asks difficult question which, if they answered them truthfully, would doom their appointment or invite further legal scrutiny, so they lie instead. On some occasions (Clapper or Clintons to mind) they just blatantly and unceremoniously lie to both parties, with impunity. On other occasions (Zuck, Pichai, others) they lie by omission or promise answers later, even when it's quite obvious they know them at the time. Nobody in the press ever checks what answers they provided "later", or whether they have provided them at all, or whether those answers were "truthful" or not.
And yes, everyone in Congress is quite into inside trading too (often holding large positions in companies they "scrutinize"). Multimillion dollar fortunes can't be built on $174K/yr otherwise.
This is a caricature of open hearings scripted for popular consumption. They're coördinated campaign events where, in essence, both parties agree to suspend legislation to win points with the uneducated.
With respect to "political affiliation" and related biases, you're ignoring the significant areas of bipartisan agreement with respect to potential (note: not proposed) legislation. (Our political culture goes to shit when legislation is actually proposed.)
> that they faced no repercussions for doing so is not an exception, it's the rule
This is playground logic. No enforcement mechanism is perfect. Permitting nullification on the hope of perfect enforcement is a straight line to anarchy.
Congress isn't a court. Its purpose is to legislate [1].
If you lie to a Congress and it impedes the legislative process, you can get boned, provided there is political will to refer you to the DoJ and sufficient evidence for them to pursue and convict you. But it's not analogous to contempt of court. (In particular, there is Constitutional risk around the executive interfering with people talking to Congress. Even at the request of some of its members.)
> This is playground logic. No enforcement mechanism is perfect.
Straw man argument. It doesn't need to be perfect.
There is a fairly wide difference between perfect and "a rule that is really only ever used to punish people when political will allows Congress to do so, and everyone else can just ignore it completely". Either it should be punishable to lie to Congress or it should not. But, if it is punishable, then it shouldn't be acceptable for high level government officials to do it publicly and overtly, then face no repercussions.
> it should be punishable to lie to Congress or it should not
That's a political view. If you feel strongly about it, I guess make it your single issue.
You won't, because nobody would, contempt of Congress is really only something people in Congress care about inasmuch as it thwarts their ability to write legislation. Congressional hearings, while managed in modern politics as public theatre, are technically only for the benefit of the Congress.
Impeachment and Congressional disciplinary procedures are political processes. So contempt of Congress is. It's not statute. It's barely a rule. It's a right the Congress may, at its discretion, exercise. (And even in that it's limited to passing a referral to the Department of Justice for consideration.)
