Should the State of the Union Address be considered "under oath"?

[Igel]

10. Sometimes it's just snark.

But no, the SOTU speech is not under oath and should not be.

There are political consequences. We might not like them, but that doesn't mean we should be willfully blind to them.

The OP conflates political with legal repercussions, which is a leitmotif in the last two years as we merge the two as though we weren't even a first- or second-rate banana republic, but a third-rate one. If there's an overlap, it should follow from what things are properly legal and what things are properly political and where they just happen to meet. There should not be an attempt to force them to overlap so that the legal system serves politics (except in the trite sense that the legal system will serve the country that a political system is over).

It's like politics and economics. You mix them and just sit back with popcorn to wait for things to start going horribly, horribly wrong.