So never under oath. Please try to be more accurate in future if you wish to be taken seriously.

he released a statement "under penalty of felony" which is not the same , and has even brought some banter amongst legal circles. Still not the same as being under oath.


2nd chance. source?

We are talking semantics here! Maybe you should have googled "sworn statements" before you launched an offensive? Again, Judge's second letter is signed by him with the statement: "I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony".

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sworn-statement/

Or maybe you shouldn't have lied and said "under oath". Pohtayto, pohtahto.

Correct, it is not a criminal case. It is a background check.
If they only interview a fraction of the witnesses then it is an inadequate background check!

Incorrect they are not under any order from the Commission, only the White House can order additional background checks. Congress cannot order the FBI to do anything!

This is a job interview, not a criminal case so who is going to prosecute witnesses?
Lying to Congress is an offence but when did they ever prosecute anyone, not in this century.
How would you ever prove a witness was lying about events from 30 years ago.

Stiff penalties, you are joking.

Holy shhhh - in other news,


WH alters the transcript of a press conference to make Spanky look less of a dick


https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trum...ppen-1.6516689


He clearly said 'thinking', this is Orwellian revisionism, btw Spanky fans, this is what fake new looks like.

First of all: Legal matters are all and utmost about semantics!

Further more I would say that in a (pseudo-) religious country as the US, this difference between "under penalty of felony" and "sworn statement" makes all the difference.
You see, God is not involved in the penalty of felony and the only thing that seems to scare an American enough to keep them from lying is the fear to end up in hell.


Forgive my generalization you innocent US-EF-members. I did use the word "seem".

Another Trump statement from the twilight zone

Source

Looking forward to Spanky explaining how you can prove your innocence from an accusation before you know the content of the accusation

He won't. They'll change the log.

Marton..You need to read up on preceedings and the US court of law.. Giving false testimony via sworn statement OR UNDER OATH is at the very least perjury. And, Judge presents his submitted sworn statement as true or else and I quote "under penalty of felony".

In laymen's terms this means if he lied in his statement, then he can be prosecuted with a felony. Not always true for those who lie under "oath" and are guilty of perjury.

See WaPo article here ( luckily it is left leaning ):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.460dacf7591e

In particular, see this author's quote:

"But the prospect of the FBI interview raises several legal issues for Judge. If he were to say anything during the interview that contradicted his letter to Congress — if he now reported remembering events surrounding the alleged assault, for example — he could expose himself to charges of making false statements. Judge may or may not be concerned about discussing events from his youth. But he has to tell the truth to the FBI — under penalty of felony."

Sorry, phonetics and semantics are not the same thing! Maybe google will be a useful tool going forward??

Oh wow, this is getting weirder and weirder. "/'ʌndə/ /ˈəʊθ/" (under oath) .... I didn't see that one in the thread, so how did phonetics come into this?
Would be an interesting way to carry on though. Maybe covfeve was actually phonetic script as well?

To quote StirB: "Poytahto, pohtahto" ... That was the comment to which I was referring...

Okay..my bad..pronunciation! But how is pronunciation an issue when I am claiming semantics?

Now you are (no doubt accidentally) confusing FBI interviews with Congress interviews.

Of course if anyone lies to the FBI under oath this is a far more serious matter than lying to Congress under oath.

To repeat, practically nobody has been indicted due to lying to Congress under oath.

Whereas, many people have been indicted due to lying to FBI under oath.

This is the major benefit of Senator Flake insisting on a FBI investigation.

Actually I do not need to read up on anything, I know the laws.

You posted "Judge presents his submitted sworn statement as true or else and I quote "under penalty of felony". as you know this is meaningless.
Whereas if he makes statements to the FBI under oath then he faces severe penalties for lying.

Could you please explain "as true or else ", this fragment makes no sense to me

The price of Presidency!
Source

So he is now almost off the top 400 list at No. 386! No doubt if he released his tax returns he would no longer be in the top 400 list.

An alternative view for Spanky's fall in net worth is "the licensing aspect of the Trump Organization, which the president has used to sell his name to be displayed on prominent buildings, has taken a massive hit due to Trump's politics.

Forbes magazine estimates the president’s licensing operation is now worth approximately $3 million, which is a sharp drop from the magazine’s $23 million estimate in 2015."

And so, by your own account, Ford could lie at will and so could Kavanaugh as they won't be prosecuted if testifying under oath at a Senate hearing? Could you elaborate here as Ouchboy and StirB think differently... They believe testifying under oath is far more egregious than submitting sworn testimony under penalty of felony...

Fascinating. God makes a difference here?
He told that in the old Testament? Or the new Testament? Or did the Americans get their own gospel - a very much more differentiated one then the rest of the world obviously?

God makes no difference here Curley...