Posted on 05/17/2013 1:07:55 PM PDT by Nachum
In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.
lawyer yes, but this is a matter of history and commity (with a “t”).
Cabinet officers are routinely asked questions without an oath.
This Pickering is not such a rank.
Hillary’s Benghazi testimony was not under oath per the custom.
However, in the Scooter Libby investigation (anyone remember that?) the independent counsel appointed by brother Al Gonzolez - Tomas de Torquemada Fitzgerald — even questioned W and Cheney and of course Scooter and Rover.
I do believe that was all under oath. But even if it was not, and in the case of Hillary lying to Congress, there are criminal laws about obstructing justice and Congress (sometimes the same thing - oxymoron?).
There is another time-honored custom, pre-dates independent counsel and special prosecutor legislation ala Ken Starr, Archibald Cox, et al, when either House of Congress may go to the DC Court of Appeals, petition the Court to appoint a special prosecutor if a sufficient showing is made that (a) a federal criminal law has been violated, b) the Attorney General has refused or neglected to prosecute it, and (c) the Attorney General is either directly involved (F&F, AP phone taps) or he is so close to the various targets so as to have an inherent conflict of interest.
No one even speaks of this stuff. Where are the history majors?? Or did they all switch over to art history?
There is another time-honored custom (until the law class Kentan came aboard) where the President orders all his people (exec branch) to cooperate with investigators, waive their confidential source role with media, waive all their rights (Scooter & Rover), or else [I guess they get fired?]. No one mentions that either.
Shalom
Pickering wants to testify in a public hearing and has volunteered to do that.
Issa wants Pickering to testify in a private hearing but Pickering said no to the private testimony.
So, Issa issued a subpoena to force him to testify privately.
That is a good move. Obviously this Pickering wants to blast the R’s. He is a total partisan and needs to be exposed as such. No such thing as “distinguished” when you speak political partisan sent to do a neutral investigation. I’d rather have Poirot.
:-)
LLS
^5
Love Darrell, keeping him in my prayers.
Good... he is dirty and I can just feel it.
LLS
investigate the investigators...
"Called in" as in called to testify, or called in as in at the time he tried to get other (presumably armed) drones sent in?
I did not hear the drone op on Hannity, or see a transcript, so if someone has a link to the audio or better yet a transcript, can you post it?
Until you subpoena HER, you're just p!$$ing in your palm.
Why are pubbies so damn DUMB? and balless?
It’s not going away, is it.
That’s interesting. So no live hearing. That way the others won’t know for sure what he said, right? So it will be harder for everyone to match up lies?
one at a time.........
Why are you such a richard cranium? Ever played chess? Do you checkmate your opponent in the first couple of moves?
Sheesh.
Issa....Islam plant. If this were Vegas, I would not put down any cash on it.
“Hey, get President Jarrett under oath as well.”
Oh how I would love to see Trey Gowdy take apart that bat-faced biotch!!
Btt later
Not if we can in any way help it.
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.