# Zuckerberg not under oath: exact legal nuances? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 11, 2018, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214 "2018-04-11T14:56:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/1 "2018-04-11T14:56:04Z")
According to: > **[Mark Zuckerberg will not be under oath during his Senate hearing, but will...](https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-will-not-be-under-oath-during-senate-hearing-2018-4)** > > Mark Zuckerberg will not be sworn in and have to take an oath during his hearing before Congress on Tuesday, two sources confirmed to Business Insider. “While Zuckerberg will not be under oath, he will still be required to answer truthfully, as lying to Congress is a federal crime.” So why not get sworn in? It would look better from a PR standpoint. Are there differences in the penalties for lying, the definition of a lie, the burden of proof for a suspected lie, the followup powers of the questioners, or other things between being sworn in or not? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/2 "2018-04-11T15:03:36Z")
There are multiple statutes regarding lying to authorities, but as a general matter, an oath isn’t required to have exposure to criminal liability. > **[What happens if you lie to Congress](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html)** > > With a potential investigation into perjury by Hillary Clinton on the horizon, CNBC broke down lying to Congress in five questions. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/3 "2018-04-11T16:47:11Z")
But the question is why didn’t they administer an oath? It’s done quite often. Psychological studies show that [if you swear to tell the truth in advance, you are more likely to tell the truth](http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersDisHonesty/Signing%20at%20the.pdf). (200K PDF file) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/4 "2018-04-11T17:06:04Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > But the question is why didn’t they administer an oath? It’s done quite often. It’s at the discretion of the chairman running the hearing. I just looked at a handful of transcripts from the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the two committees involved in yesterday’s hearing, and it doesn’t seem apparent that there is a pattern or policy on which witnesses are sworn in and which are not. ---
**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 11, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/5 "2018-04-11T17:06:06Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > But the question is why didn’t they administer an oath? It’s done quite often. It’s commonly done when witnesses are testifying before the Judiciary Committee. It’s not routinely done when people are testifying before the Commerce Committee. The presumption here is that this isn’t a criminal investigation and Zuckerberg isn’t a defendant. It’s a hearing on computer security and Zuckerberg is appearing as an expert witness on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/6 "2018-04-11T18:02:22Z")
Well, no congressional hearing is ever a criminal investigation, because Congress doesn’t investigate crimes. I think the administration of oaths in congressional testimony seems to be pretty arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/7 "2018-04-11T19:19:19Z")
Suppose Facebook is doing some work for/with US Intelligence services, and a question is asked which the Intelligence services would want answered with a lie. Would not being under oath make it not a crime to lie? That is, is there a loophole that you can lie to Congress in such a case? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/8 "2018-04-11T19:47:46Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Suppose Facebook is doing some work for/with US Intelligence services, and a question is asked which the Intelligence services would want answered with a lie. Would not being under oath make it not a crime to lie? That is, is there a loophole that you can lie to Congress in such a case? James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, [lied](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/) to Congress at a hearing, and cited national security as his rationale when it later came to light that he had done so. There is no recognized exception to the law on that basis, but he was not prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/9 "2018-04-11T20:06:45Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, [lied](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/) to Congress at a hearing, and cited national security as his rationale when it later came to light that he had done so. There were other explanations, too: [https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2013-06-21%20DNI%20Ltr%20to%20Sen.%20Feinstein.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2013-06-21%20DNI%20Ltr%20to%20Sen.%20Feinstein.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/10 "2018-04-11T20:37:47Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Well, no congressional hearing is ever a criminal investigation, because Congress doesn’t investigate crimes… Sure it does, but prosecution falls to the Executive Branch: > **[United States Senate Watergate Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Watergate_Committee)** > > The Senate Watergate Committee, known officially as the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, was a special committee established by the United States Senate, S.Res. 60, in 1973, to investigate the Watergate scandal, with the power to investigate the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and any subsequent cover-up of criminal activity, as well as "all other illegal, improper, or unethical conduct occu... > **[Congressional committees investigating the Iran–Contra affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_investigating_the_Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)** > > The congressional committees investigating the Iran–Contra affair were committees of the United States House of Representatives and of the United States Senate formed in January 1987 to investigate the Iran–Contra affair. The committees held joint hearings and issued a joint report. The hearings ran from 5 May 1987 to 6 August 1987, and the report was published in November, with a dissenting Minority Report signed by six Republican Congressmen and two Republican Senators. > The Committees were co... > **[Jack Abramoff | Scandal and criminal investigations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_criminal_investigations)** > > In late 2004, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee began to investigate Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of American Indian tribes and casinos. In September he was called before the Committee to answer questions about that work, but pleaded the fifth. > **[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | U.S. Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#U.S._Senate)** > > Members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee traveled to Ukraine and Poland in 2016 and learned about Russian operations to influence their elections. > Senator McCain called for a special select committee of the U.S. Senate to investigate Russian meddling in the election, and called election meddling an "act of war". > The Senate Intelligence Committee began work on its bipartisan inquiry in January 2017. In May, the committee voted unanimously to give both chairmen solo subpoena power. Soon ... ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/11 "2018-04-11T20:42:19Z")
Remember that the whole thing is basically a public relations show. (It isn’t like they are going to get any evidence that the investigating staff couldn’t have gotten, or maybe already has.) So the taking/not taking oaths before testimony is just another scene of this show. Included or excluded based on what audience impression it will make. In the 1950’s McCarthy hearings, they included oaths because many of the witnesses were atheists or agnostics, so their taking an affirmation (without “so help me God”) was leave a bad impression on the 1950s public. In these hearings, they aren’t going to be carried live by network TV, and current audiences are more impatient in their attention, so Congress eliminates boring, time-wasting stuff like administering oaths (that have no legal meaning anyway). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/12 "2018-04-11T20:45:37Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Remember that the whole thing is basically a public relations show. (It isn’t like they are going to get any evidence that the investigating staff couldn’t have gotten, or maybe already has.) I would be absolutely shocked if staff had interviewed Zuckerberg prior to the hearing, and they knew what he would say at the hearing. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/13 "2018-04-12T00:21:20Z")
Re PR/Law: I read that (for better or worse considering they gave him special consideration) they cut him a break while “negotiating” his appearance in that the single image of “executive holding palm up in Congress testimony”–that one photo–has become the iconic picture of “crooked corporate titan caught with pants down.” ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/14 "2018-04-12T14:35:41Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Sure it does, but prosecution falls to the Executive Branch: Where would Contempt of Congress fit into that? Is is not a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/15 "2018-04-12T15:21:39Z")
Since 1857, yes, but the modern practice is to make a referral to the US Atty. for DC: [Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zuckerberg-not-under-oath-exact-legal-nuances/812214/16 "2018-04-12T17:06:19Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Since 1857, yes, but the modern practice is to make a referral to the US Atty. for DC: [Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress) Thanks. I was curious because the day Eric Holder was cited for Contempt of Congress (same day as SCOTUS’ Obamacare decision) I was wondering if it was a crime he could be impeached for\*. \*Yes an impeachable crime is whatever HoR says it is but let’s assume the accused actually needs to commit a crime.