Party-line votes on not swearing in congressional testifiers

Is there any defense for this at all?

There were several minutes of tension early on, after Mr. Specter said it was not necessary for Mr. Gonzales to be placed under oath. Senator Feingold differed.
“Mr. Chairman, I just say that the reason that anyone would want him sworn has to do with the fact that certain statements were made under oath at the confirmation hearing,” Mr. Feingold said. “So, it seems to me, logical that since we’re going to be asking about similar things, that he should be sworn in this occasion as well.”
Mr. Feingold has made it clear he is angry about Mr. Gonzales’s response a year ago to Mr. Feingold’s question about whether he thought the president could, as commander in chief, authorize searches and wiretaps without warrants. Mr. Gonzales said then that “what we’re really discussing is a hypothetical situation.”
When Mr. Feingold pushed to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in, Mr. Specter called for a vote. The committee voted, 10 to 8, along party lines not to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in.
Mr. Feingold was clearly angry when his turn came to question Mr. Gonzales. “You wanted this committee and the American people to think that this kind of program wasn’t going on,” he said. “But it was.”
Not so, Mr. Gonzales insisted. Last year, he said, Mr. Feingold asked him whether he thought the president could authorize eavesdropping “in violation of the law,” and that the question was therefore hypothetical.
“I was telling the truth then,” the attorney general said. “I’m telling the truth now.”


I clicked this link hoping some legislater had a potty mouth. Big disappointment…

What happens if you just ask him “Are you willing to swear an oath to that effect?”

There’s going to be a hell of an investigation if the Democrats ever get control again.