3 ms·
> It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. To make my position on this clear, it absolutely _should_ be standard practice
by simoncion 4y ago
> It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath.
To make my position on this clear, it absolutely _should_ be standard practice for folks testifying on matters in front of Congress to be sworn in and give testimony under oath.
The fact that it's actually very uncommon ("It's not done because our Honored Guests might think that we're impugning their honor and integrity!" is more or less the excuse I've heard for not doing it.) says (to me) quite enough about how disinterested Congress is in justice and integrity.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoI think receiving testimony from people not under oath has its place too. When they are testifying under oath, they must be much more careful about what they say. Even to the point of saying almost nothing at all if they're not totally certain which is often the case. This even applies to those who aren't actually trying to lie in any way (many recommend to never talk to police and especially not the FBI without a lawyer present under any circumstances after all). Consider if the members of Congress and the Senate were forced to take an oath before they stood up to debate. Would there be any debate at all? That said I do agree that _more_ testimony should be made under oath and that we should in general consider testimony not under oath is much more suspect. But I don't think there is a generally correct approach here.
- frumper 4y agoCongress is going to make laws and policies based on what people say. People should be much more careful when saying things to congress.