>>1924233

So what's the point of making a witness take the oath if lying to Congress is still a crime?

"There's something ceremonial about having someone under oath," said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.

"One can argue that the difference is theatrical as much as legal," agrees University of Chicago Law Professor Daniel Hemel, which is "not to say the oath is useless" as it may have a "psychological impact on the speaker."

By far the broadest federal statute criminalizing lying is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully . . . make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in the course of “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch” of the federal government. There’s no requirement that the statement be under oath.

“Lying to Congress is always a crime,” a representative for Senator Dianne Feinstein clarified to TechCrunch. “You don’t need to be sworn in.”

>>1924654

He must not tell a lie or face penalties.

"One can argue that the difference is theatrical as much as legal," agrees University of Chicago Law Professor Daniel Hemel, which is "not to say the oath is useless" as it may have a "psychological impact on the speaker."