Does no oath mean Gonzales cannot be held in contempt of Congress?

[KansDem]

Many threads this morning observe that Alberto Gonzales (and one supposes other figures called on to answer questions) is free to lie since he was not placed under oath. Can he also simply not answer questions, like the one asking him if the Bushistas were opening first-class letters, and not be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to do so?

[Peanutcat]

1. Exactly!

What were you expecting?

[KansDem]

2. He can lie and not be held accountable.

But what people might not realize is that he simply doesn't have to answer at all, and the Congress would have no way of compelling him to answer.

If he were under oath, he might have to plead the Fifth, but this would look bad. By not being under oath, he simply sits and says nothing--in essence ignoring the questioner--and Congress can't do anything about it.

[Peanutcat]

3. No--

If he's not under oath, he can lie without any repercussions; If he's under oath, he can refuse to answer a question because of "national security" reasons. You don't HAVE to answer questions when you're under oath.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. A Republican necessity

Not requiring GOP friendly witnesses to testify under oath seems to become the standard.

However, If they later testify in the same matter under oath, I assume that statements made now (not under oath) that contradict testimony could be used as evidence of perjury. They either have to stick to the lie or change their story. It's not a happy legal situation to be in.

[Justice Is Comin]

5. Exactly and any lies are perjured testimony.

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. When Gonzo took the oath of AG office

Does this extend to any and all remarks and answers to questions no matter what the venue? :shrug: