He did not. The oath does not require the witness to always be correct. The witness's duty is to tell the truth as he knows it. I see no evidence that Frank failed to do that.

Only witnesses are placed under oath, so MS Fowler's reference is technically mis-applied, as Congressman Frank was not testifying as a witness, but making introductory comments at a hearing, where others had been called to testify.

Keep in mind as well, that witnesses can give opinions, when proper foundation is established, and as such, are seldom linked to perjury or false testimony charges.

I took MS Fowler's to be stating an aspiration politicians should try to meet, not a legal duty. Either way, Frank is in the clear, AFAIK. He is also the funniest Congressman. That should count for something.

Frank is gay, therefore he qualifies as a ready scapegoat, and attacks on him will be embraced by the RWNJ community. The real truth is that at that time in our political history, Frank was an ally of George Bush of all people, in the initiative Bush called "The Ownership Society", which was essentially Bush helping the banks sell their $hitty mortgage products that blew up in all our faces. Frank embraced this idea honestly, thinking it was a way to improve the lives of the poor, so I don't see how anyone but some political fanatic could claim he was being "dishonest". It was actually one of the big bi-partisan areas of cooperation between right and left, facilitated by the banking lobbies, back before the economy collapsed due the fact these same banking lobbies bought off the regulators to look the other way while they sold adjustable rate frauds to suckers knowing full well that if the loans adjusted upwards these suckers couldn't pay, all thanks to Bush's appointment of Christopher Cox, one of the greatest f***ing idiots to ever hold office in the US, to head the SEC. If you read this Bush White House document:

Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

you will see about half way down the initiative that was being promoted jointly by Frank and Bush in the areas of affordable housing. It was a big policy push, and Fannie and Freddie, due to overheated housing prices at the time, were indeed solvent in 2003, and only those who have little real information of those times would call it a "lie". Their insolvency came later when housing prices collapsed, and Fannie and Freddie got stuck with the bill, something the crooked bastard bankers planned on so that we would all get stuck with the bill. Instead of just being duped by the Right Wing Talk Show Propaganda meme "Barney Frank did it!", jpinville needs to face up to the fact that all of this due to the crooked banks who never did pay for what they did to us taxpayers, while Occupy protesters go to jail for protesting them, none of the bankers ever did, something we'll never hear the right wingers complain about as they pillory Frank, which is what the banking monopolies want people like jpinville to think so they won't see the real truth for what it is, something right out of the book "1984". Get a scapegoat. Get the un-informed all riled up about him. Lies become truth.

I doubt whether either Bush or Frank realized they were being used by the banking crooks in the scheme to sell pumped up mortgages so they could bundle them into crooked derivative and credit default swap schemes, and then insure them thru AIG, Fannie, and Freddie, and then watch us taxpayers pay their losses. Low information people like jpinville just think screaming "Fannie and Freddie and Frank!" somehow actually means anything, but the real truth is that Fannie and Freddie were as duped and defrauded as the rest of us were. Some of us have stayed duped. You want to see the real Fannie and Freddie crook, he's right here:

Newt: The ultimate Beltway swindler - Newt Gingrich - Salon.com

[QUOTE=MTI;2833693]Only witnesses are placed under oath, so MS Fowler's reference is technically mis-applied, as Congressman Frank was not testifying as a witness, ..../QUOTE]
Well that makes it okay then. Never mind.

You are correct.
I appreciated Frank's Town Hall comments when he was responding to a woman who said that she could never trust government again. His response was along the lines of, " Who told you to trust government. You should never trust government."
Good comments


I also understand that sometimes a lie may be required. As is 1942 Germany, " Are you hiding any Jews in your house?" Sometimes protecting the defenseless is a higher requirement. But protecting ones one butt should never be an acceptable reason to tolerate a lie.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

We are indeed fortunate to have Salon.com to always point us to the truth. lol

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

As fortunate as we are to have Glenn Beck telling you what to think about Barney Frank and his role in this crisis.

Technically, it does make his statement okay. As stated, the statement of opinion would not be a falsehood, with or without the witness oath, as it does express his opinion about the lender. An oath was not given or required due to the nature of the proceeding.

What part of Mr. Frank's testimony do you understand to have been a falsehood?

Oh I dunno. I like it when people stick with facts and truth. I'm okay with speculation except when it involves the motives of others, especially one's opposition. We have folks on this board who revel in character assassination in lieu of reasonable argument. We could name names. You first.

Reliance on technicality and ad hominem argument is why Congress is held in a proportionally accurate state of esteem.

Any person can lie under oath, or lie when they're not under oath. The technical difference is criminal liability for perjury arises when you're under oath, however the effect on one's moral character and reputation is the same. I don't see reliance on technicalities as inherently bad, they are part and parcel of the laws that make our nation what it is, for better or for worse.

Besides Watergate, the Monica deal and the housing collapse are you really trying say all other issues on that list were evil in themselves?

Or are you just trying to voice your ignorant opinion with a blanket statement of blame and apathy?

__________________
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

I recondition w123/w126/w124/w140/r107/r129/ steering boxes!


1984 300D "Elsa" odo reset 6/2011 147k
1983 300TD "Mitzi" ~268k OM603 powered
1995 E300 "Adelheid" 262k [Sold]

I wouldn't presume that you would consider otherwise, that being your chosen profession. Laws require fine observance of technicality which I appreciate and support in regards to all things legal.

And as you accurately suggest, Mr Franks was not in a court of law nor was he udner oath. So technically he was safe. I would suggest that the Congress would operate more effectively if the folks in it spent less time dancing about with technicalities except when they are writing laws. And when writing laws, over-reliance on technicalities can result in voluminous laws that are highly ambiguous, like the tax code, which leads us to even more foolishness and law suits, churning the legal business nicely without significant benefit to taxpayers.

Botnst . . . remember those simple 10 laws that were carried down from a mountain . . . our lives and social interactions have advanced quite a bit from those days, such that even the subsequent scribes and "witnesses" have taken considerable liberty with the actual text, creating an entirely new testament . . . simplicity doesn't stand a chance.

Unless you know something I don't, the other reason he was safe is that he told the truth as he believed it to be.