Is his testimony worthwhile if he has not sworn to tell the truth?
See
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070320/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_bush_dc_1
2007-03-20 08:45:19 · 7 answers · asked by zman492 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
no. and they should nail the .....................
2007-03-20 09:01:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I mean they accept testimony from many others so why should they treat him any differently. His testimony will be no different under oath or not unless he is a liar and in which case being sworn means nothing in determining the truth. Are you so naive that you believe people who are sworn in always tell the truth? Have you ever heard the phrase "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Liars lie, honest people tell the truth, regardless of taking an oath. Honesty really is that simple.
I am sure that is not the answer you sought but it is correct regardless.
This whole thing is a political witch hunt, do you think that is how congress should spend our dollars?
2007-03-21 01:53:12 · answer #2 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should anybody accept what CONGRESS says without the whole lot of them being under oath and attached to high voltage adminstering lie detectors? Boy, talk about a potential energy shortage!
PS did you know that Karl Rove shot Lincoln, caused the collapse of the Roman Empire and assisted president Bush in creating the racist hurricane Katrina?
2007-03-20 10:01:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can't imagine what the purpose would be of questioning him while not under oath. As to the answer above, yes, people do lie under oath, but if caught it can also cause them a world of hurt. If you aren't under oath, you can lie with no fear at all--in fact it would be almost expected of someone in Rove's position.
Just a little example: President Bush promised that if anyone in his administration turned out to have anything to do with Valerie Plame's outing, he would fire them. Well, he wasn't under oath, so nothing can be done, even though he hasn't fired a single one of the many people in his administration who have now admitted that they gave or confirmed this information to various sources.
2007-03-20 09:11:11 · answer #4 · answered by ktd_73 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton swore to tell the truth, but lied anyway. A man's oath is only as good as his word. If he will lie while not under oath, he will also lie under oath. The oath is not what makes him an honest man.
2007-03-20 08:50:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. He must be under oath or cannot be held accountable for his answers. The only reason they don't want him to testify under oath is so that he can lie with impunity, not subject to perjury charges later on.
2007-03-20 09:14:18 · answer #6 · answered by RE 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
...please... what difference would it make....? Bill Clinton was under "oath"...remember, President "drop'his'pants"...?
and he lied.... who cares...? "they are all freaking liars"... and you keep electing them.....!!!
2007-03-25 04:23:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋