What gives Rove the privilege of answering questions, but not under oath?

Question

I find it ridiculous. Please someone explain to me why after doing something that is quesitonable to everyone else but Bush and himself, he gets to "testify" without being under oath..What is the point of that? What makes Karl Rove more special that any of us? If I do something wrong and I have to be questioned will I have the right to not take the oath? If he has nothing to hide why won't he just take it, and if he does have something to hide we can clearly see...Why would he not want to swear if he did nothing questionable? It really upsets me to see what kind of people are running this country....What do y'all think?

Answer 1

Funny how the "born again Christian President" will not allow his top aides to put their hands on the Bible and promise to abide by "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".

Aloha.

Answer 2

The presidents staff cannot be forced to testify under oath unless they are involved in a criminal investigation. There is no criminal investigation because Bush can fire any US Attorney for any reason. That is the law.

What makes Rove special is that he is a Presidential Aide. It is called Executive Privilege. It is law. The Congress has no legal basis to force his testimony at all. He doesn't have to tell them anything, under oath or otherwise.

Answer 3

I do not believe they will get the truth out of Karl Rove no mater if he is under oath or not.

Answer 4

Let's see: anytime you testify before congress, you are required to speak truthfully, so there's not need to do so under oath. Further, it is only required to testify under oath during a criminal investigation.

Bush fired one US attorney because she wouldn't prosecute illegal immigrants who actively committed crimes in San Diego. Another wouldn't prosecute marijuana smuggling cases unless it involved an amount in excess of 500 pounds. That's a lot of pot.

Answer 5

Warrant-less wiretaps are OK. Testifying under oath goes against the neo-tution.