This morning, Attorney General Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the NSA wiretap program. The Republicans on the committee refused to swear him in under oath, which was requested by the Democrats. This is the second time that I'm aware of that this has happened recently. A few months ago, when a group of oil company executives testified, the same thing happened - the Democrats said that witnesses should be sworn in like always and pledge to tell the truth and the Republicans refused to do so.
What I'd like to know is how unusual this is. What are the Senate guidelines on such matters? Is it normal procedure to swear in every person who testifies in front of a committee, the way it is with any witness in court? Or is it up to each committee chairman at his discretion? If in fact it is a matter of routine that every witness gets sworn in, then it strikes me that the Republicans have some serious explaining to do as to why they chose to change that in these two cases (and perhaps others we are unaware of). If the practice is more haphazard and up to the discretion of each chairman, then it's a tempest in a teapot at best.
- Log in to post comments
Even if it's not normal procedure, I don't understand why they would let it become an issue. Democrats want him sworn in? Swear him in! He is planning to tell the truth, right? Right?
I heard that whole exchange this morning, and when I heard the Republicans on the Committee vote in step to not swear him in, I couldn't help wondering what their party is trying to hide. At the very least it seems they'll do whatever it takes to protect their President. Even though Specter said he had great reservations about the spying program (and I'm glad he said that), I still find the refusal to swear these people in very troubling--especially considering Specter and Gonzalez had talked about swearing him in. Somehow the AG's assertion that he will answer questions the same way even though he wasn't sworn in isn't exactly comforting.
Ed -
See House Rules Effecting Committees, especially page 9.
Administering the Oath. Rule XI, clause 2(m)(2)
"The chairman of the committee, or any member designated by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnessess"
Note that its' entirely the Chairs call, and the oath may be administered.
Sp. "Affecting"
This is the Senate, not the House. Do their rules say something similar?
Hmmm, I think for the Senate, each committee agrees on and files its own rules in advance (in accordance with Senate Rule XXVI(2), whereby the rules of each committee are published no later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress). Certainly some of them required the taking of oaths. See Select Committee on Intelligence for 2005, wherein Rule 8.2 states, "Oath or Affirmation.--Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation which may be administered by any member of the Committee."
But looking at the Judiciary Committee's own procedures, I see nothing there about oaths.
The senators themselves are required to swear an oath (see Senate Rule III), but I can see no specific requirement in this regard for witnesses.
My concern is that when he last testified under oath on this matter, he made statements that now appear to have been at best deceptive, and at worst outright lies, which would then make him guilty of an impeachable offense. It appears that to avoid that happening again, risking a felony perjury charge, the GOP decided to simply not place him under oath. Is there any other way to read this than: "let him lie."
Hadn't you heard? The 9/14/01 resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force contained a blanket oath for all executive branch personnel. Since that date, everything they've ever said has been the Truth And Nothing But, regardless of how it fit with the facts.
It seems to me that if one has nothing to hide there is no reason not to testify under oath. One is sworn in to testify in court - why not to testify before the Senate? I thought (previous to the oil execs) that they always swore witness's. It just implies that they want to provide the oppertunity for the witness to lie.
For most hearings, no oath is sworn. Generally under Judiciary Committee rules, any single member may request any particular witness be sworn, and it is done. This become contentious during the early 1980s, in the Reagan administration. And, ironically, it was probably made into an issue by Orrin Hatch's swearing in witnesses who didn't really expect to be sworn. Hatch would then demonstrate how well his investigators worked, and why he was such an effetive trial lawyer -- and the relevant secretary would call to complain that Hatch had put the administration in an untenable position . . .
At the hearings for Ray Donovan's nomination to be Secretary of Labor, Hatch asked that the FBI witnesses be sworn "to demonstrate the seriousness of what they would say." Unfortunately, they were covering up, and they got caught. The issue blew up on the Labor Committee and the Reagan administration; Donovan had to take leave for a trial on charges that he was affiliated with organized crime in his previous job (he was acquitted), and the Reagan labor policies never recovered. Hatch, I think, rather enjoyed making officials squirm. He insisted that Dr. Hank Davita (sp?), the head of the National Cancer Institute, be sworn before one hearing on goofs in research and administration, for example. Getting sworn in makes a point to the witness about just how high the stakes are. There can be no contempt of Congress claim for unsworn testimony.
For some time after that, swearing was just a hostile move. After staffing over a thousand hearings, I had a chance to go before a House Committee, after I moved to the Department of Education. After assuring us the hearing was friendly and fact-finding, Rep. Major Owens of N.Y. asked us to take an oath. We had expected it, and it was no big deal.
My suspicion is that Specter just didn't want to get into those waters. Sworn testimony can be used in court, in other proceedings. Sworn testimony makes a fibber an "official" liar, subject to criminal prosecution. I think Specter was cutting Gonzales some slack, possibly to make it easier to get the real facts later. Listening to the hearings this afternoon, I wasn't convinced Gonzales yet appreciates the favor Specter did for him.
Yeah, there's something to hide. Specter may know what it is, or he may simply want to be able to negotiate to get the facts, outside the glare of microphones and cameras.
The Rule III oath senators swear is to uphold and defend the Constitution and be faithful to the Constitution and nation -- not to tell the truth.
Ed, thanks for the information. I figured if anyone would know, it would be you, given your background in how Washington works.