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

[babsbunny]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6966

'It's a non-issue', source tells The BRAD BLOG, federal law already 'makes it a crime to lie to Congress, regardless of oath'
UPDATED: Siegelman whistleblower Simpson responds: 'I had to take oath'...



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. Writes our source in reply:

[liberal N proud]

1. How do these criminals pull this shit off?

:nuke:

[Just-plain-Kathy]

3. ...With a little help from their friends.

Democrats are in power now. From here on in, everything is in our laps. Our guys are going to let them walk.

Sure Pelosi will bitch and moan, but our guys will let them get away with every treasonous act.

[Raven]

2. They must be more honest than the rest of us, right?

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The Democrats are complicit with their treason, up to their eyeballs

If Rove and the rest are not allowed to lie, the entire US government will crumble under the scandal. I mean, what other reason could possibly allow for this?

[Rosco T.]

5. no one paying attention to "transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury"

perjury is perjury, oath or not..