Every time I hear the phrase "under oath" I mentally replace it with "pinky promise" because it all has tbe exact same amount of weight. There's no reason to assume someone is being truthful just because they promised you they aren't lying.

Then there is the technicality of "if they believe it is the truth then they aren't lying" so as long as other have convinced them enough for them to believe it, then they haven't broken their oath.

This is just meaningless elementary school behavior from adults and anyone that can't see that or thinks oaths and such symbolic social constructs are meaningful are not worth taking seriously.

[–] whiskyriot@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Unlike pinky promising, there are serious criminal penalties for lying under oath. It's perjury and counts as a felony and comes with up to 7 years in prison. Not to mention what it would do to your career, especially a career in the military/intelligence.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so as long as other have convinced them enough for them to believe it, then they haven't broken their oath.

[–] whiskyriot@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. Grusch could have been misled and bought into lies/misinformation. But at the very least I think HE believes it or wouldn't be putting his career in jeopardy by reporting to Inspector Generals and testifying to Congress.

The above poster makes it sound like he is likely to be lying about it, which I think is a weak character attack and not arguing in good faith.

Don't forget, along with the oral and written testimony, Grusch supposedly provided enough evidence to the ICIG to warrant an "urgent and credible" threat.

load more comments (3 replies)