Why weren't Bush*/Cheney sworn?

[trof]

Where is the repug line about "no man is above the law"?
What good is "testimony" when it's not under oath?
Is the witness still subject to perjury charges if he's not sworn?

Why did Fitzgerald agree to this?
Any legal eagles like to weigh in on this?

[carolinalady]

1. In some media coverage they have said that Cheney was

sworn. I don't know if it is true or not.

[trof]

14. Later retracted, I believe.

[QuettaKid]

2. is this true? where did you get this

that they were not sworn to tell the truth...?

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. When you are being interviewed for a grand jury

even if it was done privately, it doesn't matter, no oath is needed. It is still a crime to present false evidence.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Got a link?

I don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

[trof]

6. They were "interviewed" by Fitzgerald in the WH last year.

Or one of his lieutenants.
They did not testify under oath.
I'll find a link.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Hey OldLeftieLawyer, here's the guy you attempted to insult doing research

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3824

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. Hello

Before I click on that link, I'd like to know what you're talking about.

I "attempted to insult"?

Ha.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. I've been researching stuff for years, I'm capable, & the link is the list

I've been researching stuff for years, I'm capable, and the link is the list you want.

I am not a lawyer.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. "... the list (I) want...."?

No, that's someone's blog, with absolutely no authentication.

Sorry, but I don't traffic in hearsay. It's a waste of everyone's time.

When anything comes from Fitzgerald's office and/or the Court, then it will mean something. Until then, I'm content to wait and see.

[Mnemosyne]

5. Honest men have no problem

testifying under oath.

The twin idiots wouldn't testify under oath for the 9/11 Commission either.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. "Courtesy", and not necessary. Lies would be Obstruction of Justice.

[trof]

8. OK, "weak" link: Daily Kos

If you look at the list of witnesses that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation has questioned, you will see that the president and vice president were interviewed, but did not testify under oath. Since most of the others did, this make me think one of two things:

1. . Fitzgerald made a serious error of judgment by not expecting them to testify under oath, or
2. . it suggests that Fitzgerald believed it was futile to attempt to coerce them, for reasons worthy of discussion.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/24/202924/19

I'l try to find MSM link.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Interviewing someone

isn't the same as eliciting sworn testimony.

Interviewing is informal, just conversation, asking and answering questions, with or without counsel (smart people always have counsel with them, anyway).

There's nothing that could implicate anyone if it's not under oath, and interviews aren't under oath.

That's why they're called "interviews."

Otherwise, they're called "testimony."

See?

[robbedvoter]

11. Same with the 911 commision. Swearing is for Dems only.

here's the Fitz list specifying who tesrified and how

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3824
Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. Hmmm

Since no official list has been put out by Patrick Fitzgerad, I'd say we'd all do well to wait and see what happens.

This is from someone's blog. That kind of thing isn't even remotely persuasive, full, as it is, of rumors and hearsay, none of it reliable.

[trof]

13. Bingo! WaPo, June 2004:

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and several assistants questioned the president for about 70 minutes in the Oval Office yesterday morning. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the substance of the interview but said Bush, who was accompanied by a private lawyer, was not placed under oath.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Yep

See my post about interview v testimony.

No big deal.

[leftofthedial]

16. because EVERYONE knows they are liars

the bushturd especially can't flap his gums without lying and everyone knows it

but because he is a member of the ruling class, they allow him to flaunt laws, ethics, morality and basic decency with a wink and a nudge

this has to be stamped out in America if the dream is to survive.

[onenote]

20. usual explanation: executive privilege (which seems like BS to me)

Admittedly, I'm guessing here, but if Bush and Cheney didn't testify under oath, it probably had to do with some claim based on separation of powers and executive privilege. During the 9/11 proceedings, Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore all gave statements, but unlike other witnesses, were not placed under oath. Bush didn't want Rice to testify either, and Gonzalez (then WH counsel) wrote to the Commission expressly asserting executive privilege concerns. The compromise with Rice was that she would be placed under oath, but it would be expressly acknowledged that doing so set no precedent.

What doesn't make sense to me is that the WH was originally willing to Rice testify in private, but not under oath. That doesn't seem to protect executive privilege, so it raises a question as to the sincerity of their position.

onenote