Posted on 03/16/2007 5:52:23 PM PDT by jrooney
Democrats Alter Oath For Witnesses: Leaves Out God
Henry Waxman just swore in Valerie Plame. He said it was the custom of his committee to put all witnesses under oath. He then administered this oath:
"Do You promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?"
That seems awfully weak. Waxman omitted, the traditional "So help you God" He also omitted the requirement to "swear" to the honesty of her testimony. She was only required to "promise" which seems to be a much lower standard. People break promises all the time; they dare to break oaths much less frequently.
Given this lame formulation was Plame actually under oath? Probably not.
The Democrats have gone out of their way, once again, to single-mindedly erase any ceremonial use of the word "God" in public life. This is very odd, since the Supreme Court has specifically OK'd ceremonial uses of the word.
One commentator on Findlaw said that " in the absence of an oath, Americans are ordinarily free to lie."
No wonder she could sit there and say she had no influence in Joe being sent to Niger, when that has already been proven as fact by the Senate and trial testimony from the CIA and State at Libby's trial.
Placing a Democrat under oath is an exercise in futility.
They will lie either way. I would not believe Plame if she said that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow.
And what happened to "the whole truth" part?
This is perhaps designed to let her weasel out of a perjury charge in their money gubbing civil suit?
Weak oath for a weak man. Fitting.
Waxman. Man of wax. Godless man of wax.
Promises, promises. That's all we ever get.
From what I have seen, she lied with almost every word she spoke. Now the question is, whether any of the Republicans have enough guts to hold up the mirror to those lies.
If the legal penalties remain for lying under oath, then what does it matter whether or not the word "God" is used?
Thanks for my new name for him. :-)
DeMARXocrats made sure that the truth would not come out by the questions the Republicans were allowed to ask.
Legally that is still under oath, with or without God.
Sincere means without wax in Latin.
Is it me... or does Waxman looks like one of the characters from the bar scene in Star Wars?
Were the other witnesses today given the 'traditional' oath?
"Godless man of wax"
Thanks. Though it's hard to beat El Rushbo's "Henry Nostrilitus".
But the Wax Man on TV has to be the ultimate Revenge of the Nerd. Wait 'til he's grilling combat hardened military officers.
"Just stand up and take the oath, General! I give the orders around here!!"
LOL! I do believe that he does! We need a graphic to figure out which one.
"Without wax: sincere"
LOL and very true,
I hate phonies, don't you?
I wondered about the "oath" that Waxman was using myself today...however, I didn't say anthing because I usually don't pay such close attention to whether and how witnesses are usually sworn in....
My guess is....just like Waxman lied about the evidence today..he parsed the words in order for Valerie to have "plausible deniability".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.