Gonzales does NOT have to be under oath, folks. Chill out.

[WilliamPitt]

If Gonzales gives false testimony to this committee, he can be prosecuted under 18 USC 1001, which makes it a felony to make any false statement to congress. See statute below:

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

-STATUTE-

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any

matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or

judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly

and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or

device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the

same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as

defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or

both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial

proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,

representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or

counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the

legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a

matter related to the procurement of property or services,

personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a

document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to

the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative

branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the

authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of

the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or

Senate.

[underpants]

1. WHY ISN'T HE UNDER OATH!?!?!!!!!!

I just wanted the record to show that that was asked

:evilgrin:

[WilliamPitt]

3. Because Conyers is a DINO collaborator

or something.

;)

[LSK]

9. yeah but we didnt swear you in so it dont count

:D

[rurallib]

2. Thanks, I needed that

Seems like the little snake is doing little but lie today. Just want to make sure he can be properly rewarded.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Thank you! Lying to Congress is a crime -- oath or no oath

I knew that to be the case but would've been unable to locate the statute that says this.
Thanks for citing it!

[markbark]

16. So...

can we nail Chimpy McCokespoon for his last six SOTU addresses then?
:evilgrin:

--MAB

[marmar]

5. Thanks Will Pitt....

As usual, there's plenty of reactionary drama on the boards. :eyes:

[Faygo Kid]

25. Always glad to see a Tigers fan.

[Beelzebud]

6. Thank you for making some sense out of this.

The rules can be so confusing. Thank you for taking the time to clear it up.

[LSK]

7. he obviously lied to the Senate and nothing happened

He was under oath then.

[wiggs]

18. Right. I think we're way, WAY past the point where congress should be

excercising oversight duties using only the MINIMUM standards, tools, and strategies. Hitting with soft gloves and pulled punches is for overseeing administrations that are doing a good job and that aren't causing irreparable damage by the minute.

Remind Gonzales that it is a de facto crime to lie to congress, put him under oath anyway, when he lies indict him or find him in contempt of congress and impeach him for that and any number of other misdeeds. Simple. That's oversight. Hearings without consequences are just shows that let off steam.

[bdamomma]

8. I think Conyers knows he is dealing with someone who has

no creditability, Conyers probably knows that gonzo is stonewalling him.

[Demit]

10. Appreciate the elucidation. Don't appreciate the admonishment you always add.

You can't seem to resist chiding people on this board. Cut it out.

[LSK]

11. sorry, but people need to chill out

[WilliamPitt]

12. *shrug*

People needed to chill. I said so.

Chill. ;)

[liberalnurse]

14. Thanks Will.............

Folks just need to trust Conyers on this...he has his eye on the "Big Picture". O8)

May I remind the impulsive skeptics; that John Conyers spends every waking and sleeping moment on the crimes of this administration. He has a methodical pace to follow.

[WilliamPitt]

13. .

[wiggs]

15. Was it a mistake, then, for him to be under oath the last time?

Was it un-necessary? Or did it add another layer of respect, binding legal authority, seriousness, and procedural propriety to a significant event?

Why the change? I buy that it is illegal to lie to congress....but being under oath adds something to the equation and dynamics, don't you think? I personally think that interaction between congress and WH is complex....not being under oath could have something to do with other issues or upcoming events...part of a broader negotiation and strategy, not even necessarily related to the subject of these hearings. I'm curious as to what that is though and I'm curious why the questioning is softer than need be....

[WilliamPitt]

17. Not sure

But I'd bet that the Senate required the oath as a matter of tradition and theater. The Senate prides itself on both, so it stands to reason. The law is the law, oath or otherwise.

[blueworld]

19. Why bother with an oath at all then?

Congress can do without theater - they're already filling the coffers at the Comedy Channel.

Does an oath clarify "intent", which is an important component of a perjury or obstruction charge? Perhaps that's why Gonzo can't recall his mother's name under oath, but if they nail him on something when he isn't under oath he can state it was a "mistake"?

[Faygo Kid]

20. Dammit, put him under oath. This is too important, and may bring this cabal down.

I am sick and tired of the game-playing involved here. Anybody recall that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job?????

Where is the anger? The Fox News, Limbaugh types have intimidated journalists. God Damn It, where is the courage to take these bastards on?

I am pissed. This is the best we can do? Bullshit.

[Drops_not_Dope]

21. Thank you, William Pitt

:popcorn:

[judy]

22. Thanks Will, I had read this from an article by John Dean

and to me, it also meant that the Smirk himself is liable for prosecution under this law for the famous "16 words" in the State of the Union address.
What is the deal about not impeaching these creeps???!!

[madokie]

23. yep by not swearing him in maybe he'll be more liable to lie

[Divine Discontent]

24. they don't follow the rules, never have

not sure what the chill out is in reference to, but obv. someone is believed to be over-reacting in someone else's opinion. A lot of my liberal friends who are moderately paying attention to the news are beginning to feel this Congress won't stop Bush's gang of thieves in the temple... :(

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[drm604]

26. Yea! If he lies the Attorney General will tear him a new one!

:evilgrin: Sorry, couldn't resist.

But seriously, who will enforce the law when he breaks it? Ultimately, we're going to be depending on the Supreme Court and they may or may not do the right thing. And what happens if they do the right thing but Gonzales and Bush tell them to go screw themselves?

[onehandle]

27. We have to Trick him into being under oath.

Then he'll get one small detail wrong and POW!

That's the Only way we can get him. Sean Hannity says so.