Is there ever a valid reason to not want to testify under oath?

[garybeck]

To say they'll testify but not under oath... I'm scratching my brain and can't find any reason why someone would agree to testify but not under oath, other than--

1) they want to lie and not have to worry about being charged with perjury at a later date

2) they are guilty and they know it

am i missing something?

[hobbit709]

1. That pretty much covers it.

On second thought-maybe (3) covering up for someone else

[babylonsister]

2. They're covered in lies and would get caught if under oath. So,

I say GUILTY!

[Bluerthanblue]

3. because the bible forbids taking 'oaths'- (sarcastic, but factually true) n/t

[Solon]

4. There is one other scenario...

Privileged communications:

Spousal privilege

Attorney/client privilege

Doctor/patient privilege

Cleric/petitioner privilege

This isn't to say that Bush has a valid reason, but there ARE valid reasons, in general, as to why some people CANNOT testify under oath.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. All of those are exceptions to a requirement to answer

a question and not a reason to not testify under oath. You left out "self incrimination" and it too is not a reason to not testify, it is a reason to not answer specific questions.

[Solon]

15. Good point...

I forgot about the 5th Amendment, but it also limits the subpoena in question if the scope of it involves the privilege, for example, asking an attorney to testify against a client isn't generally allowed, at all.

Though I wonder if Gonzales will actually plead the fifth during testimony, that would create an uproar in itself.

Like I said, I don't think these apply to the Bush administration, but it can limit the scope of the testimony under oath to the point of being useless.

[BadgerKid]

11. Bingo!

Suppose some attorney knew that or even helped his client commit an illegal act. Would you want that attorney to have to testify under oath?

[Solon]

17. There are exceptions...

If an attorney acted in that manner, then they are a co-conspirator of the crime and therefore privilege can be revoked, this is the reason why they are called privileges, not rights. They weren't acting in their capacity as an advocate for a client, but helped instigate a crime. However, even then, the testimony is limited to ELEMENTS of the crime in question that the attorney participated in, rather than everything they told their client while acting as the client's attorney.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The reason is to avoid prosecution.

Your choices summed it up. There are questions that they do not want to truthfully answer that they know will be asked.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Nazis.

[NightWatcher]

9. not just Nazis, but Fascists the whole lot of them

A militant, totalitarian regime of corpo-fascists

[Zenlitened]

8. "There's only one reason why you agree to 'talk' to Congress unsworn..."

...There's only one reason why you agree to 'talk' to Congress unsworn, in private and without a transcript: because you want to be able to lie or dodge questions in a way that's too embarrassing to do in public.

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[ClintonTyree]

10. Executive privilege......

we'd be setting a dangerous precedent if they were forced to testify under oath.

:rofl: All right, it was just a joke! :rofl: Other than the two reasons you listed, there is no excuse.

[Singular73]

12. Depends what they are going to ask you.

[Ninja Jordan]

13. National security secrets.

[Warpy]

14. There is also number 3

They want to avoid the sort of perjury trap they set for Clinton.

[Lusted4]

16. The issue is more like, not allowing your accomplices to testify under oath nt