Do the affidavits the SmearVets signed prevent them from breaking ranks?

[brentspeak]

Suppose some of O'Neill's SwiftVets have second thoughts about their own sordid role in the smear -- would the affidavits O'Neill insisted they each sign somehow put them in legal trouble if they take back what they said?

Does O'Neill have his own SwiftVets by the gonads?

[rwenos]

1. Only if . . .

the second statement was also under oath.

Since the affidavits are not part of a court case, as a practical matter there could be no perjury conviction -- no way to establish the "materiality" element of the perjury charge, which requires a showing of (1) a statement under oath; (2) which is false; (3) with knowledge of the falsity of the statement; (4) which is material to the case being heard.

Element (4) is the one that can't be established -- "materiality".

No case pending, no court or enforcement agency to which the statements were submitted, no perjury.

[xray s]

2. I doubt those affidavits are worth the toilet paper they are written on

Totally meaningless documents designed to feign authenticity to lies.

[rwenos]

3. Dead On . . .

The affidavits were clearly written with the knowledge they have no legal effect.

Just Pubbie posturing.

[brentspeak]

4. You're probably right

I just wonder if O'Neill has made some of them believe that it IS a binding legal document. That's just a conspiracy theory on my part, but we DO know that O'Neill is one slimy S.O.B. who's willing to say or do anything to keep his smear going.

[rwenos]

5. Oh, C'mon . . .

Everyone KNOWS Pubbie lawyers don't lie. Just Democratic ones.

(Sound of toilet flushing.)