# Perjury vs honest Republican lying :-) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606 "2007-04-03T19:49:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/21 "2007-04-04T16:28:44Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I’m not sure, but it seems to me that taking an oath would be seen as an encroachment on executive privilege, given that that privilege has been used in the past to not only avoid testimony, but also ignore warrants. [/QUOTE] **Mr. Mota** is on to something. Is seems to me that this isn’t about what will be said by who, but it’s a power struggle. Mr. Bush is trying to send the message that he and his people are covered by executive privilege and that they are not answerable to congress, but only to the president. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/22 "2007-04-04T16:39:24Z")
[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate] **Mr. Mota** is on to something. Is seems to me that this isn’t about what will be said by who, but it’s a power struggle. Mr. Bush is trying to send the message that he and his people are covered by executive privilege and that they are not answerable to congress, but only to the president. [/QUOTE] Then I think now might be a good time to start putting this whole executive privilege thing in check. I don’t see how executive privilege can be invoked in a case like this. Do people think we’re risking problems with homeland security or something, if these aides were to testify under oath? LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/23 "2007-04-04T16:50:14Z")
[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate] **Mr. Mota** is on to something. [/QUOTE] Much more likely that fictional detective [Mr. Mot **o**](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029660/), played by the estimable Peter Lorre, would be on to something, than that [Mr. Mot **a**](http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/motama01.shtml) would, unless that ‘something’ turned out to be a hanging curveball. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/24 "2007-04-04T17:01:23Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I’m not sure, but it seems to me that taking an oath would be seen as an encroachment on executive privilege, given that that privilege has been used in the past to not only avoid testimony, but also ignore warrants. [/QUOTE] So, by not taking the oath, Rove, e.g., could lie to the Senate in his testimony, and get away with it somehow? Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand the implications. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/25 "2007-04-04T17:27:45Z")
My read on it is that the Judiciary Committee has expressed an interest in getting this testimony, and if Miers, Rove et al testify under oath, it will set a precedent that Congress is entitled to this kind of testimony even from advisers normally falling under the privilege umbrella. The offer of a more informal interview process was a way to get the information out while keeping executive claims about executive privilege intact. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/26 "2007-04-04T17:43:00Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] My read on it is that the Judiciary Committee has expressed an interest in getting this testimony, and if Miers, Rove et al testify under oath, it will set a precedent that Congress is entitled to this kind of testimony even from advisers normally falling under the privilege umbrella. The offer of a more informal interview process was a way to get the information out while keeping executive claims about executive privilege intact. [/QUOTE] Sounds right to me. Thanks,\*\* Mr. Moto\*\*. Just a little bit ago, I decided to pose my question to CSPAN. The schedule calls for Open Phones at 2 pm but it turns out they’ve got JimmyCarter on now and the program’s supposed to run through 5pm. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/27 "2007-04-06T14:14:45Z")
Without an oath or a transcript and in a private hearing, is it possible that Justice Department stooges will say things like “Yeah, we heard a rumor that the eight fired lawyers were members of a child-porn ring” or something similar which is unverifiable and, under normal conditions, slanderous? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/28 "2007-04-06T15:47:24Z")
Don’t be ridiculous! Bushiviks take advantage of the situation to offer spin the place of the brisk, straightforward candor that is the very hallmark of the Pub party? \* Veritas \* is their guiding light, these are the palladins of purity and civic virtue… (Damn, this is some _good_ shit!..Where was I?) Oh, yeah, right…civic virtue and unimpeachable moral vigor! Given their record of clarity and truth, only a depraved and cynical lefty would suggest that they require the sorts of constraints needed for a scoundrel like Bill Clinton! Oh, tempura! Oh, morays! ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/29 "2007-04-06T15:53:17Z")
[QUOTE=astorian] Instead, they’ve acted as if they’ve done something illegeal, even though they haven’t! I think these guys have reached a point where lying and stonewalling comes naturally and automatically, even when there’s absolutely no need for it! [/QUOTE] If, as you say, they act as if they had done something illegal how can you be so sure they didn’t? One Justice Dept official will use the protection of the 5th amendment. You can only do that if you reason to believe that your testimony has the potention to be used against you in a subsequent legal proceding. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/30 "2007-04-06T16:17:16Z")
I’d consider using it if I was heading into a committee headed up by Pat Leahy. There are lots of Democrats I’d trust to run a committee in a fair and evenhanded fashion. Leahy isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/31 "2007-04-06T16:35:54Z")
I can kind of see the point if this is a power play by the President, saying “You can’t make us do JACK.” It’s just a really, really, really bad time for this. With his approval ratings shooting downward ever further, it’s a bad idea for Bush to let his administration look so very much like a pack of liars. Even President Ahmedinejad is appearing to stand on the moral high ground in relation with that clever little move he made with the UK sailors, and it’s rather a sad day for the City on the Hill when the president of a country not so much known for fantastic human rights comes out looking squeakier. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606/32 "2007-04-06T16:39:30Z")
> [@](#): > > His minions dutifully claim, “It really doesn’t make any difference because the penalties are the same: 5 years for perjury, 5 years for lying in a Senate hearing.” A speculation here, but is it possible that while the two different “crimes” carry the same theoretical penalty, they are actually treated differently in practice. Suppose, for example, that committing perjury under oath is something that thousands of people have been convicted of and sent to prison for, but that the rules covering lying in a Senate hearing are some obscure regulations that have never been enforced. The White House could claim the two are the same for public consumption, even while knowing they are actually vastly different. A similar switch has already been made once in the Plame case. In early statements, the President said that anyone who released classified information would be fired. Later he said anyone who was convicted of releasing classified information would be fired. The two statements sound the same but are actually extremely different. It’s already been proven that a number of people in the Bush administration released classified information. But the law on this crime is extremely narrowly defined - only one person has ever been charged and convicted for releasing classifed information. The President’s advisors certainly must have been aware that nobody will get fired if the standard is raised to a conviction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perjury-vs-honest-republican-lying/398606.md?page=1)