LEGAL NEEDED: Is testimony taken "under oath" by Conyers legally binding?

[mordarlar]

I need to know if this is held to the same legally binding standard as a court of law. Even though it was not a formal hearing? Thank you.

[Bill Bored]

1. And were they actually placed under oath at Conyers' hearings? n/t

[mordarlar]

2. Yes several of the people were SWORN in at the hearings. : )

[Sanity Claws]

3. What do you mean "legally binding?"

If they contradict themselves later, then they could be prosecuted for perjury. Is that what you wanted to know?
However, when the prosecutors are Republicans, do you think that is likely to happen?

[mordarlar]

4. The hearings are informal. Does this affect the...

legalities of testimony

[Sanity Claws]

7. Were they placed under oath?

If they lied under oath, they are liable for perjury. That's the meaning of perjury.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Yeah, it is

They can be charged with contempt of Congress. If the individual is found to be in contempt of Congress, that charge has to be brought by a resolution reported from the affected congressional committee which can cite any individual for contempt.

Then, the resolution goes to the House or Senate for adoption.

If it's adopted, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution, who decides whether or not to convene a grand jury to examine the evidence leading to the charge. That's where the possibility of indictment and prosecution rises or falls.

If prosecuted by the courts and found guilty of contempt, the punishment is presently set at up to one year in prison and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

[mordarlar]

6. And this is true even if the hearing is considered "informal"?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. I don't know what "informal" means

If you're under oath, you're under oath. Calling something informal doesn't change that.

[mordarlar]

9. Thank you I wondered because the hearings were viewed...

as not formal Congressional hearings. I did not know if this had any bearing on Congressional contempt.

[bemis12]

10. But there was no

Congressional investigation by any committee. It was an investigation by 3 guys, not a committee. There was no "affected committee".

Perjury could certainly be pursued, on the other hand, should it have occurred.

[troubleinwinter]

11. I think most of those who testified for Conyers' forums

were not under oath. I THINK Clinton Curtis WAS testifying under oath.

Some affidavits were given under penalty of purjury.

[Alizaryn]

12. Are you asking this because of Moyer's ruling that the

affidavits submitted by Arnebeck could not be used in court? Even though they were notarized statements, he rejected them because they were not "proper affidavits"?