It depends on what the meaning of ‘participation’ is

Last week, it seemed the CEOs from the nation’s biggest oil companies had been caught dead to rights. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing over escalating energy prices, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) asked the five CEOs if their company, or any of its representatives, participated in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001. They said they hadn’t, which became a tad controversial when a White House document surfaced showing they did.

Never fear, clever Republican attorneys can explain everything.

Yesterday, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for the GOP staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, one of the two panels that convened the hearing, said its lawyers had reached a preliminary conclusion: Based on a court decision in which two groups unsuccessfully challenged the secrecy of the Cheney task force, Funk said the executives appeared to be telling the truth.

“What we simply determined was that the definition of ‘participation’ was something litigated, and what the court concluded was that attending meetings, and even making presentations, did not rise to the level of fully participating,” Funk said.

Here’s the pitch: Dick Cheney (former oilman) led a task force that held secret meetings to shape the nation’s energy policy. As part of the effort, each of the country’s major oil companies spoke to administration officials and contributed information about the issue. In turn, according to the General Accounting Office, the VP “collaborated heavily” with the companies’ representatives in shaping policy. But none of this, according to the new defense, constituted “participation” on the part of the companies with Cheney’s work.

At a minimum, these guys deserve an “A” for creativity.

Sen. Lautenberg was less amused, saying, “I think we’re getting down to almost a silly discussion.” He’s still asking the Justice Department to investigate whether the oil execs broke the law during their committee testimony.

almost a silly discussion?

When are the Dems going to start being an opposition party? For a start, why don’t they hold mock hearings on their own? In a rented hall if need be. DO something, for once.

  • Does the phrase “it depends on what the meaning of is is” come to mind of anyone else reading this?

    They have no shame. Hypocrites.

  • I might say something like “maybe it’s only participation if they gave each other a blowjob”, but that would be beneath my usual lofty rhetorical standards.

    On the other hand, if the shoe fits….. 😉

  • Seems to me Clinton asked the lawyers to
    define the term “sex” before he answered
    the question. Am I mistaken? And they
    narrowed it for him – maybe because they
    weren’t very worldly?

    Anyway, here they’re redefining the term
    after it was asked/answered in ordinary
    parlance. That’s not cricket.

    Aside from the fact that the excuse is
    utterly absurd.

  • What I find interesting is that the GOP was constantly on Clinton about parsing and look what they do know. Pot meet kettle.

  • I’d like to participate in this discussion but I can’t because I’m not here.

    Maybe if I don’t participate in the second helpings of turkey and mashed potatos I’m going to have tomorrow I’ll have room for pie.

    Sometime when I am here I will give Thanks for the intelligent discussion, astute observation and good humor which is always available at TCR.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

    Burro

  • Comments are closed.