Page 1, 2

Propaganda or Perjury?

Did you know that it is illegal to present false testimony to a body of Congress?

The most recent edition of House Practice, the rules which govern business in the House of Representatives, states, "Under federal statutes (18 USC Sec. 1621), it is a felony to give perjurious testimony before a congressional committee." (pg. 259).

NAB consultant Charles Jackson presented information very similar to what's on his compact disc (including doctored audio samples of LPFM interference) as part of NAB testimony to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. He was a witness at a recent hearing hearing on the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act." Did he intentionally state fact as fallacy?

The NAB, its executives and experts would have a hard time proving their technical testimony and engineering data isn't false, because they can't. Both the FCC's amazing public declaration and Maxwell's empirical evidence completely refute it - as does the real world, and any FM radio.

But the NAB's blatant use and distribution of disinformation adds considerable credence to the argument that it its engaged in a willful attempt to dupe Congress.

Therefore, could LPFM's opponents have perjured themselves?

Unfortunately, the answer is probably not. First of all, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee's hearing was not held under oath. That's a big and necessary requirement for getting a perjury charge to stick.

Second, it is not clear from the hearing documents currently available online if the audio samples were actually presented as true proof of how an LPFM station would interfere with a full-power one. All of the NAB's witnesses, from President Eddie Fritts to Dr. Jackson, use very creative language in their statements that might not strictly meet the legal definition of perjury.

Congress also operates under its own set of rules and laws, which include loopholes that exempt lawmakers from certain misdemeanor crimes commited while in session. It is not clear if any of these rules could be applied to exempt a charge in this case.

Also, there is a temporary window Congress makes avaliable for members to edit transcripts from any meeting before they are released to the public. Any potential shreds of evidence from the verbal question-and-answer part of the hearing could be legally removed (destroyed) before this particular hearing's records are finalized.

The sheer arrogance of the National Association of Broadcasters and its political operative procedures is undeniable. Those lawmakers who have signed to the NAB's anti-LPFM law have done so for one of two reasons - ignorance or greed. It will soon come time to find out which one prevails.