3 ms·
That’s not the same as perjury, and relatively few people have been convicted of this. If it were “illegal either way”, then there would be no point to swearing
by ynniv 9y ago
That’s not the same as perjury, and relatively few people have been convicted of this. If it were “illegal either way”, then there would be no point to swearing people in. A decision was made to not swear him in, and he knows this.
- samstave 9y agoI’d be willing to bet that the donations to >80% of the panel interviewing him purchased the privilege to not having to ‘swear in’
- jhayward 9y ago> relatively few people have been convicted of this I take it you don’t keep up with current events much. There have been a number of high profile convictions under 18 USC 1001 this past year. Adding: the penalties for false statements and perjury are roughly the same, although false statements can also carry a heavier sentence in some cases. There are defenses against perjury that are not available under the false statements law. All in all, they are very similar. You may find the Congressional research Service’s summary of these [1] to be helpful. [1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf
- ynniv 9y agoAccording to your summary document, 1001 has a number of requirements and limitations. It would not surprise me if those were meaningful. You are arguing that there is no additional benefit to being sworn in before Congress, but it is not treated as such when Senators demand that certain testimony be given under oath.