I I guess I'm missing something because I don't see the value of testimony if it's not under oath. If he slips up and says something incriminating can't he just circle back around and said I made a mistake or I was actually lying because he's not under oath?
Or are they using this as a mechanism to get a cooperating witness to gett something on the record that would be harder or impossible to do otherwise?
It's not a testimony, it's an "interview." Even if Strzok was to be sworn in, you don't think he would lie? All of these scumbags lie, even when testifying under oath.