Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Alter Oath For Witnesses: Leaves Out God (Does not look like Plame testified under oath)
Penraker.com ^ | 3-16-07 | Penraker

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."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: liar; libby; plame; plamegate; waxman; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: blogblogginaway

I do not know.


21 posted on 03/16/2007 6:20:06 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
he parsed the words in order for Valerie to have "plausible deniability".

This whole thing was a sham. I don't mind so much the pubbies staying away, but I'm wondering if they don't come out now and explain why they weren't there, make public the restrictions and the list of questions that were verboten whether they have the fight in them that we need. Somebody on our side needs to start throwing some verbal punches.

22 posted on 03/16/2007 6:26:52 PM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
Hey what's a little lying compared to infanticide? I mean lying under oath is tame compared to the MURDER of the innocent. How anyone could EVER trust anything they say is beyond my comprehension.

These deluded people are deceived, and deceiving!

23 posted on 03/16/2007 6:40:17 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Compromise with Islam means you will submit to them killing you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport
Placing a Democrat under oath is an exercise in futility They should have learned about the importance of honest testimony from Scooter Libby. Will those in the democrat party ever learn?
24 posted on 03/16/2007 6:53:00 PM PDT by 101st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Good catch.


25 posted on 03/16/2007 6:59:31 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
It's still legally valid affirmation, so that lying would be perjury.

The customary invocation of God is not what makes it legal. This has come up even in early times because Quakers would not swear oaths.

26 posted on 03/16/2007 7:27:25 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101st

The thing is, No Democrats will ever be prosecuted for perjury. This is a crime only Republicans can committ.


27 posted on 03/16/2007 7:33:23 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salman
It's still legally valid affirmation, so that lying would be perjury.

Then she's a perjurer, and the committee knows it.

Let's see if any of the spineless jellyfish known as Republicans even thinkof bringing it up. If they hd any principles left, they'd demand that Fitznifong or some other prosecutor brign charges against her. But the odds against any of them doing anything but apologizing are about 300 million to one.

28 posted on 03/16/2007 7:54:35 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

That is a good point....if the GOP stayed away "for reason"....it would have been nice if they would have let us know.

If they didn't stay away for a good reason...then I want to know what their reasoning was...either way, it sure as heck didn't help Pres. Bush....which I pray is NOT their motive.


29 posted on 03/16/2007 8:01:11 PM PDT by Txsleuth (I don't know who I am voting for yet...just window shopping.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sport
No Democrats will ever be prosecuted for perjury. This is a crime only Republicans can committ. There is no justice.
30 posted on 03/16/2007 8:03:55 PM PDT by 101st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
So Waxman gave Plame the license to lie. Just damn.
31 posted on 03/16/2007 9:20:22 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 101st
There is no justice.

There is. But she is often hard to find because she relocated her offices and redeployed from DC long time ago, and is now in the process of redeploying from several other major cities in several states as well. By strange coincidence all these cities and states are occupied in overwhelming numbers by Democrats, and their color is currently described as "blue".

32 posted on 03/16/2007 10:52:59 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

All the witnesses took the same oath. They were all under oath.


33 posted on 03/16/2007 10:56:37 PM PDT by freespirited (Why Rudy? Because we need an SOB in the WOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101st

Wow, how did you manage to register yourself tomorrow?

101st
Since Mar 17, 2007

Anyway, welcome to FR.


34 posted on 03/16/2007 10:57:08 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sport
Placing a Democrat under oath is an exercise in futility.

I don't know....I'd be inclined to believe Waxman if he swore under oath that his nostrils picked up HBO....

35 posted on 03/16/2007 11:14:50 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Wow, how did you manage to register yourself tomorrow? 101st Since Mar 17, 2007 A trick I learned from the Democrat party on future debts and accounting. Did you ever notice that a Democrat can follow one into a revolving door and come out first?
36 posted on 03/17/2007 9:15:42 AM PDT by 101st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 101st
A trick I learned from the Democrat party on future debts and accounting. Did you ever notice that a Democrat can follow one into a revolving door and come out first?

I did notice that. It's a neat trick. We need people here who wouldn't miss it. Glad to have you here on FR, hope you find it a nice and warm place.

37 posted on 03/17/2007 10:08:35 AM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
We need people here who wouldn't miss it. Glad to have you here on FR, hope you find it a nice and warm place.


Thank you for the kind words.
38 posted on 03/19/2007 8:12:49 AM PDT by 101st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson