It appears that the oil executives who testified before Congress, not under oath, may have lied. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asked a pointed question.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: “Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001?” When there was no immediate response, Lautenberg added: “The meeting . . . ”

“No,” said Raymond.

“No,” said Chevron Chairman David J. O’Reilly.

“We did not, no,” said ConocoPhillips chairman James Mulva.

“To be honest, I don’t know,” said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. “I wasn’t here then.”

“But your company was here,” Lautenberg replied.

“Yes,” Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. “Not to my knowledge,” he said.

I would like to read the full transcript, to make sure that these remarks aren’t being exerpted out of context, but if they are presented accurately in this story, it’s a big deal, because at least according to MSNBC this is false information. Why would they say this if it weren’t true? And also relevant, though I’ve not seen a huge firestorm about it, is why did Ted Stevens (R-AK) decide to not swear these guys in in the first place?

If I weren’t trying to finish up some things before the Thanksgiving week holiday, I would dig around more. If you have more relevant info, email me and I’ll add a link to your blog.

UPDATE: Democrats react.

Senate Democrats demanded that oil company executives who testified last week about skyrocketing energy prices reappear before lawmakers and testify under oath, after news reports raised questions about the truthfulness of their testimony.

I’m not sure that’s completely necessary, though obviously it helps the Democrats politically to try to disparage Cheney in the process. Lying to Congress (link via Lex) in itself carries pretty stiff penalties, even without having been under oath. The real question for me is not whether their lie was told under oath, but whether or not they lied (under oath or not), and if so why?