From: jonah357@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:05:28 AM UTC-6, David B wrote:   
   > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 8:01:12 PM UTC-5, No One Special wrote:    
   > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-7, David B wrote:    
   > >    
   > > > Obviously you don't understand the difference between an interview and   
   testifying at a hearing.    
   > > They call it an "interview" using semantics, there is no appraisable   
   difference. Official testimony before congress is testimony before congress no   
   matter what they call it.   
   > You fail to realize you just disproved the original assertion, that somehow   
   since he didn't perform the Oath, that somehow the testimony isn't subject to   
   the very same rules dictating the truthfulness of someone who was under Oath,   
   which is BS. The    
   record clearly shows that during the interview the elements taken during the   
   Oath, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing by the truth   
   was invoked as it always is during any testimony. The place you're hung up in   
   is the procedural    
   differences between an informal interview and a formal proceeding. It isn't   
   semantics, it's simply the way it is. Basically what is being said during the   
   interview is while you didn't stand and take the Oath, (which you don't do in   
   an interview) it    
   carries te very same rules and penalties of perjury if you don't adhere to the   
   very same principles as if you had taken the Oath. This is why the OP is   
   simply stupid what-ism's that have no basis in reality. Figure it out Anthony.   
   David, you are amazing, you support your claim by contradicting yourself, then   
   claim a victory! You should be a politician!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)