I was watching the news and noticed that at some of these senate hearings, the Sen. Ted Stevens and seemed to not require those big oil CEO’s to “swear in”. Then this hearing with Attorney Gonzalez who was sworn in twice, but the third time not required to be sworn in, (again by a partisan supporter of his) What does this mean, IE why would someone be called in to testify and not be “sworn in” ?
Does that mean they can lie and no one cares?
If this is the case, what is the point of getting their testimony?
(yes, I watched both of these events on the Daily Show…sadly one of my primary sources of “the news”[sic])
I was thinking about this issue earlier today, specifically in relation to these cases, but i had a slightly different question. If it’s OK, i’ll piggyback my question onto your thread.
How much precedent is there for this sort of thing? As a leftist, my first thought was to blame the Republican head of these committees for playing partisan politics, and refusing to swear in people whose ideology matched their own.
But, knowing what Washington is like, i’m also fully aware that Democrats might have done similar stuff in the past.
So what’s the Straight Dope on this? Does this practice of explicitly declining to swear in certain people appearing before committees have a long history, or is this a recent development in Washington?
A man is on trial for murder. After all the evidence has been laid out, it seems fairly clear that he’s guilty, but the jury still wants to hear his plea. The judge turns to the defendant and says, “How do you plead?”
The man says, “Not guilty.”
“You are aware, I assume, of the penalty for perjury?”
“Yes, Your Honor,” he says, grinning, “and it’s a lot better than the penalty for murder!”
Thank you, thank you…
So what I’m wondering is, we have lying to Congress, and then we have lying to Congress under oath. While both of those things may be illegal, is the second one “more illegal” as in, is there a bigger punishment for it?
