I want to know what is being hidden by the present administration as much as the next Liberal, but, I truly want to know why "oath taking" would prevent lying.
And, since an oath cannot guarantee the "truth", why does Bushie insist his folks should not be made to take one?
And....while I'm at it...maybe Bill should have refused to be put "under oath", too!?!?
2007-03-21 20:44:37 · 19 answers · asked by Joey's Back 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Being sworn to testify in front of Congress or in court is a strong oath, but it doesn't have a truth detector attached to it. Criminals lie all the time and most suspects that testify in their own defense could be lying. However, telling a lie before Congress or a Court of Law sets that person up for a charge of Perjury and a jail sentence that starts at a minimum of 5 years. Of course with parole and all that jazz the sentences can be reduced.
George Bush doesn't want his staff to testify before Congress, especially under oath; because if they do it under oath then they can get caught in a minor lie. In the case of the Attorney Generals firing he has allowed two staff members to appear before Congress to testify behind closed doors, but he will not allow them to do it under oath. So Congress can't use the threat of jail time to compel them to tell the truth.
Former President Clinton testified under oath to Congress that he did not have sexual relations with Monica L. We now know better. The Republican controlled Congress wanted to impeach the President for lying under oath to Congress. But, the issue had a fine line based on the definition of sex. Bill claimed to never have had intercourse with Monica, but his definition of "having sex" did not include oral sex. It is a hairline, but it was enough of an issue to delay the proceedings so that his term in office expired before Congress could start impeachment procedures, and after President Clinton was out of office the impeachment movement died a silent death.
The Democrats have found it tough to pass legislation, tougher than they expected. They have only a 1 vote lead in the Senate. If they can get a bill to pass then the President can easily veto it. Once that happens there are enough remaining Republicans to prevent a veto over-ride so the bill would die. This is why Congress hasn't been able to compel the President to a firm timeline of when the troops will be withdrawn.
Many political pundits are saying that the Democrats are finding it easier to investigate rather than to legislate. So they think that is why Congress is so happy to investigate any possible wrong doing. Hillary Clinton is especially eager to find proof of wrong doing, thanks to her and her husband's political clout she has gotten an important position in Congress and will be heavily involved in any such investigations. If she is able to find any illegal act then that involvement might be enough to give her a boost past Barach Obama, putting her in the lead for next year's presidential race.
To the Democrats the chances of catching Bush himself in an illegal and impeachable act is pretty slim, but if they can with the current public opinion a Democratic victory will almost be certain. With this in mind the Democrats have started campaigning early on just the off chance they can get into office quicker. According to our Constitution if they do then they can still serve 2 more terms in office, because over half of the President's second term is over.
2007-03-21 21:09:55 · answer #1 · answered by Dan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, there are a bunch of questions here, so in my typical perverse way (not in the DatelineSence) I'll answer the lat one first. Bill did his best to avoid testifying under oath. He lost.
Ther are three issues involved in the testimony being required.
1)That it be public, so that not only the investigators, but the American people ahve the oppertunity to observe the demeanor of the respondents. The white House has correctly surmised that this will not go well for them.
2)that it be under oath, so that the respondent can be prosecuted if they lie
3)that it be recorded, so that comparisons between the testimony and the documents being subpoena'ed can be made.
Of course, with a very conservative Supreme Court in place, I have my doubts that the White House willbe compelled to supply this testimony. There is no actually provision for "executive privilege" in the constitution, so the issue here is that compelling testimony would amount to one branch of the government interfereing with another branch. Of course, in both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Supremes (the court, not the 60's singing group) rulled that compelling testimony did not violate the constitution, so the court would have to find flaws in those decisions, to prevent the testimony of White House officials.
2007-03-21 23:56:30 · answer #2 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Testifying under oath is not a lie detector but it holds the person legally bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if the person deliberately states something that is a total lie, then that person can be charged with the crime of perjury (lying while under oath) and spend some jail time, like Libby, for example. The fact that Dubya's rat-pack don't want to testify under oath sure suggests that they're hiding something... but, what else is new? What can you expect from those that place themselves above the same laws, ethics and morals imposed on the rest of society...? They LOVE to add, "if you have nothing to hide" those those they are violating the rights of... but now that the proverbial is on the other proverbial foot... well, things change quickly... like Dubya was NOT concerned with fair play when his political party had control over both the Senate and House of Reps... but recently he wanted to make nice-nice and work and cooperate in a bi-partisanship fashion... well, where's HIS "work and cooperate in a bi-partisanship fashion" NOW? Looks like it was all nothing more than a brief period of lucidity... and he's back in a stupidity stupor again! What's he hiding and what's he afraid of...? The truth coming out?
Remember, they are always saying, "If you have nothing to hide..."? Well, what's good for the "goosed" is also good for the "gooser" (you may quote me on this one).
I can't understand how so many Republican voters are always shouting how Democrats are liars but won't urge the Republicans to "tell the truth" UNDER OATH... what's the difference in THEIR eyes between telling the truth under oath and not under oath if they're going to tell the supposed truth? The Republican voters should be the first to yell and demand that the White House testify... and keep the "honor and integrity" of the GOP "intact" (yeah.... RIGHT!) AREN'T the Republicans the ones that "always" tell the truth...? So, WHY, WHY, WHY don't they want to tell the "truth" under oath????
2007-03-21 21:17:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
While the oath may not be an ultimate lie detector, it is an oral contract to tell the truth.
It doesn't so much make people tell the truth. What it does is open them up to further litigation if they are caught lying. As most lies can be caught by a competant lawyer, one would advise someone not to take the oath to 1)keep them from having to testify and 2) prevent them from being tried for false testmony/perjury later on, should they be found to be lying.
Hope this helps!
2007-03-21 20:54:15 · answer #4 · answered by p37ry 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its a risky gamble from Bush in not presenting Rove et al.
They can either go in or be subpoenaed.
If they go in, they can at least negotiate terms and conditions for the testimony...like what Mr. Fielding offered.
If not, they can be subpoenaed. And unlike what some people may think, a subpoena is an order to provide testimony on a _certain subject_. It would not be a wide fishing net as some would have you believe. And any questions not relevant to the case at hand can and will be ignored by the witness.
As you can see, a subpoena offers the witness far fewer options. And yes, I know that Bush will cite executive priviledge...he is already laying the groundwork for his case (by only releasing WH to DoJ emails, not internal emails of the WH).
2007-03-21 21:10:40 · answer #5 · answered by jw 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because President Bush and anyone in his adminstration is above and beyond being put under oath.
Funny the republicans had no problem with Clinton going under oath over his sex life but this president it beyond it.
Bush and Chenny both refused to go under oath when congress wanted to question them over 9/11 several years ago.
2007-03-21 21:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by wondermom 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Testifying "under oath" does not stop a liar from lying. But If the liar has his way of testifying "not under oath", then he may think: Why not?
2007-03-21 20:53:21 · answer #7 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When one testifies under oath and lies, it is perjury. Perjury is a felony. That is why liars do not want to testify under oath.
We are about to see a historic battle between Bush's sleazy bunch refusing to testify and the new congress insisting on it.
2007-03-21 20:49:35 · answer #8 · answered by ignoramus 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why are they lying about a simple Administrative privelege?
No one elected Karl Rove into office--Why protect him?
The testimony he would give under oath would not be limited to just the Attorney firings--THAT'S WHY!!!
2007-03-21 21:00:25 · answer #9 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If he's caught out for lying under oath, heads will roll.
2007-03-21 20:58:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋