House Judiciary Source: No Oath Required for Rove, Miers Testimony, None Needed

[BradBlog]

No Oath Required for Rove, Miers Testimony, None Needed: House Judiciary Source
Federal law already 'makes it a crime to lie to Congress, regardless of oath', source clarifies to The BRAD BLOG
'It's a non-issue'...

Given the questions concerning whether or not Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be required to testify under oath as part of their agreement to give "transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury" concerning the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, as announced yesterday by House Judiciary chairman John Conyers, we thought we'd seek some clarification.

We asked a senior source on the U.S. House Judiciary team, whether or not taking an oath before testifying would be required, or whether the agreement requires Rove and Miers not be placed under oath. Our source answers in reply that no oath will be given, nor is none needed, since lying to Congress is already a crime, according to federal statute. 'It's a non-issue', the source tells us...

FULL STATEMENT, EXPLANATION: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6966

Yesterday...
BREAKING: CONYERS REACHES AGREEMENT WITH ROVE, MIERS FOR PRIVATE TESTIMONY
DETAILS, FULL STATEMENT FROM CONYERS: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6963

[rvablue]

1. OH. GOD. What's the point of even doing it then. What a farce. n/t

[Ian David]

3. Keith Olbermann can re-enact their testimony using cardboard cut-outs. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. They are still subject to perjury.

[mod mom]

8. that seemed to be the plan. Remember he had to re-do his testimony 5 X during

Plame.

[BradBlog]

9. Read the full statement from the source, at linked article (n/t)

[Ian David]

2. There is NO SEX in The Private Testimony Room! n/t

[spanone]

5. then why does anyone take the oath when testifying before congress? why?

[ManiacJoe]

7. Tradition?

[DJ13]

6. lying to Congress is already a crime

........and just how many proven liars have been prosecuted for lying to Congress in recent years?

0

Zero

Zilch

[Kitty Herder]

10. Yep.

I wish Congress would do their fucking job for a change.

[samrock]

11. IF the Demos will let them get away with this..

Then any time someone is called to testity in front of congress .. they should just refrain from taking an oath.. they can say.. well if Turd blossom and Miers did not have to.. I won't either..

[endarkenment]

12. OFFS we have no spine.

Put the fucking lying bastards under oath. If it is a non issue then why do they make anyone testify under oath?

[rosesaylavee]

13. Good.

Get them in there. If they need to have it be private, so be it. I think the transcripts would be provided if/when it goes further and it can be determined (most likely) that their need for privacy is trumped by the public needing to know about the crime committed. I am willing to wait and see the results of this.

Good for Conyers for pushing this forward despite the opposition he has faced.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Let 'Em Lie...

Get their words in a transcript. The prosecution wouldn't happen here anyway. While not under oath, their statements will be subject to perjury at a later date, and be assured there will be a later date. This game will move on to the Judiciary where the DOJ investigations are rolling and others are ramping up. I fully expect Rove will face a jury in the next couple years and the words he says to this committee could be used.

But then, don't be surprised if both Meiers and Rove's memories, like their emails, have gone blank. No need to lie when you have faulty memories.