If you are not under oath what is keeping you from lying?
2007-03-20 10:54:10 · 7 answers · asked by itsdabigbadwolf 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well with Karl Rove that is not even an issue. He is a fine upstanding moral man, who would never do or say anything dishonest.
I am fully confident he will be 100% truthful and not lie about anything AT ALL.
2007-03-20 10:57:05 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the comparable reason Clinton wasn't while his human beings testified no longer under oath related to the firing of ninety six legal experts generals by using Hillary. countless that have been fired have been investigating the one you love Clintons. And yet no one stated a word.. WIND BAG!
2016-12-15 04:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, oaths are given in court, not during an investigation.
2007-03-20 10:57:07 · answer #3 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing, except other federal laws (18 USC 1001).
Not that federal laws seem to mean much these days.
Congress has the authority to compel testimony under oath.
Period. Bush can ignore the law all he wants, but that doesn't change the law.
2007-03-20 10:58:36 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
and as Republicans so often say about wire tapping... "what does it matter"... if you're under oath or not... "if you've not got anything to hide?"
I guess my question is... why fight being under oath?
2007-03-20 11:28:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not reasonable. It's show business.
2007-03-20 10:58:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not just tell them it's ok to lie then?
Wait....they would do that anyways nevermind.
2007-03-20 10:57:26 · answer #7 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋