Al Franken wants them 'under oath'!

[malaise]

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/07/23/al-franken-pushes-trump-edge-demanding-donald-trump-jr-testify-oath.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im
Video at link
<snip>

Al Franken Pushes Trump Over The Edge By Demanding Donald Trump Jr. Testify Under Oath
By Jason Easley on Sun, Jul 23rd, 2017 at 6:43 pm

In a move that is certain to make the scared president even jumpier, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) is demanding that Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort be required to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Transcript via CNN’s State Of The Union:

TAPPER: Nothing to hide. You’re willing to testify under oath, all of that. Except we’re being told now that they’re going to testify behind closed doors and not under oath.

Is that good enough?

FRANKEN: No. That’s not good enough. They should be under oath.

And I did not know it would be not under oath. It should be under oath. I’ll be talking to —

TAPPER: That’s our — that’s our understanding.

FRANKEN: OK. Well, that’s the first I’ve heard of that. You may be right. I don’t know.

TAPPER: Are you disappointed — is it — are you disappointed that it’s — the very least we know that it’s going to be behind closed doors. Are you very — are you disappointed that Grassley cut that deal?

FRANKEN: If it’s not under oath I am.

Yes. I think that they need to be under oath. And they need to release all the documents. I mean he didn’t say he would testify publicly so — but under oath he said. So he should — he should definitely do that. And I have a lot of questions for him.

[Nevernose]

1. "Not under oath" means

"I'm going to lie my ass off."

[malaise]

2. Hilarious that folks who did nothing wrong

won't say so under oath

The word is GUILTY!

[panader0]

11. These guys will lie their asses off even under oath.

[Whiskeytide]

16. But if under oath, there could be consequences. N/T.

[awesomerwb1]

35. You're correct

They don't care. It makes no difference to them if previous "under oath" testimonies are any indication.

[sharedvalues]

3. Excellent news. Franken is an asset to America

Get to the bottom of this, Al!

[ProudLib72]

4. Thank goodness Chuck "Snake in the" Grassley is making it so easy for them

Telling the truth hurts the tRumps a lot. It's excruciating, like pulling teeth without anesthetic. Mean old Franken, he ought to be ashamed of himself asking for the truth!

[Golden Raisin]

5. Where are Schumer and Pelosi?

They should also be demanding publicly that the hearings should be under oath and supporting Franken. Even if Republicans won't do it (under oath) the Democratic Leadership needs to be united and speak out loudly about this.

[malaise]

6. Agreed

They should use the (hiding his tax returns) Con's stunning words - what are you hiding?

[MiddleClass]

10. My thinking, keeping their powder dry to launch a attack to get them to testify in public

Knowing Grassley is going to drag his heels and bury the promise. Remember, they know exactly what's going to happen.

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. Grassley is giving them permission to lie

I don't think there is any other way to spin that.

[Kaleva]

8. Under oath or not, lying to Congress is a crime.

A person who lies to Congress without taking an oath could face up to 5 years in prison.

"Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years. "

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html

[sharedvalues]

12. So why not put them under oath then, if it doesn't matter?

[Kaleva]

13. What is the advantage in having the witness under oath?

[sharedvalues]

15. Good question. Why does Congress ever put anyone under oath?

[Kaleva]

18. Did some Google searching

A person lying to Congress under oath could face perjury charges. A person lying to Congress while not under oath could face charges for making false statements.

An explanation as to the difference between perjury and making false statements can be found here:

"The difference between perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/10/how_many_ways_can_you_say_lie.html

[sharedvalues]

17. If under oath, there are two statutes. If not, only one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/23/scaramucci_vows_dramatic_action_to_stop_leaks_from_the_white_house.html

It looks like the standards are subtly different between the two statutes. It appears the main difference is that people are more likely to be prosecuted under the perjury statute (i.e. when lying under oath).


But more generally - if it doesn't matter why doesn't Grassley just do it? What's he afraid of? What does the American populace gain if Grassley doesn't put them under oath?

[Kaleva]

20. Making false declarations is easier to prove

" perjury convictions must be based on evidence from at least two witnesses; false declarations can be proved without any witnesses. "

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/10/how_many_ways_can_you_say_lie.html

[58Sunliner]

25. Or one witness and corroborating evidence.

It is actually more complicated as there are 4 elements of perjury an oath, an intent, falsity and materiality.
The oath need not be administered in any particular form, but it must be administered by a person or body legally authorized to do so.
The intent element requires that the false testimony was knowingly stated and described. This requirement is generally satisfied by proof that the defendant knew his testimony was false at the time it was provided. Circumstantial evidence is relevant.
The Federal jury instructions which Federal courts use in perjury cases can provide helpful guidance in understanding what is meant by the requirement that the false statement must be made knowingly.
Falsity-was the statement false.
The test for whether a statement is material, as stated by the Supreme Court in Kungys v. the United States, is simply whether it had a ''natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing the official proceeding."

In the United States Criminal Code, there are two perjury offenses. The offenses are found in Section 1621 and 1623 of Title XVIII of the United States Criminal Code. Section 1621 is the broad jury, the broad perjury, statute which makes it a Federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a false statement about a material matter while under oath. Section 1623 is the more specific perjury statute, which makes it a Federal offense to knowingly make a false statement about a material matter while under oath before a Federal court or before a Federal grand jury.

[58Sunliner]

19. Yes, but perjury is more remarkable. It goes on record.

I noticed you skipped this part.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.

If he wants to lie he should have to run the risk of being prosecuted for perjury. It's BS.

[Kaleva]

21. But perjury is harder to prove then making false statements

Inconsistent testimony is enough to satisfy making a false statement charge. To make perjury stick, you need two witnesses.

[58Sunliner]

24. harder to prove when they have intercepts and witness statements?

He has already made false statements both verbally and in writing. Time for him to be under oath. The whole point is they want to make it so he does not perjure himself.
I don't think it will be hard to prove, that is why they are eager to limit liability and exposure.

[Kaleva]

26. Perjury is very hard to prove

You have to prove that the witness clearly knew he was lying when he made his testimony.

[58Sunliner]

28. Actually it is not necessarily hard to prove. See above.

And in Jared's case, I doubt it would be hard.
But please keep posting why Jared should not have to testify under oath. I for one am not buying it.

[Purveyor]

33. And James Clapper {{{chuckles}}}...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=james+clapper+lies+to+congress&atb=v74-3__&ia=web

[Awsi Dooger]

9. I have to laugh at the concept that under oath means anything in this administration

When they lie everyone who knows they are lying will shut up and follow with lies of their own.

Nobody is going to hold them accountable. To this extreme there was never a contemplated remedy.

[58Sunliner]

22. It matters. Especially when there is proof and it goes to credibility.

[oasis]

14. Will WH press ask Trump about their "no oath" testimony?

Transparency? What have they got to hide?

[Efilroft Sul]

23. If you don't testify under oath, then you deem yourself to be above the law.

[Qutzupalotl]

27. One of Al's questions should be "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ...

and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Worth a shot!

[flibbitygiblets]

29. UNDER OATH goddammit! How many lies have been told already while NOT under oath?

1. There was no Russia meeting! It did NOT happen and you are all HORRIBLE for saying it did!
2. Oh, THAT meeting? It was nothing! We talked about adoptions, isn't that adorable?
3. That's all! Nothing more to see!
4. Except about the sweet sweet dirt they have on Hillary! BUT they fooled us, no such dirt. End of story.
5. Except for that other guy in the room (repeat several times for each new "guy&quot

THIS guy gets to testify without being sworn to tell the truth? GTFO!!

[58Sunliner]

30. Time to call folks. This is BS.

[MrPurple]

31. So, Mark McGwire talking about steroids was important enough to be under oath, but this isn't?

Trump himself proclaimed that he'd be happy to go under oath (which of course was complete bullshit), but his fucking son won't do it?

[Lyricalinklines]

32. Seems to me the republican committee is seeking to limit potential...

...charges.

So being vague to members at large about perameters testimony will be given could give impression "under oath" is understood. Lessor charges would then be used should charges occur after testimony. Legal haggling.

Am I missing something?

[Blue_Tires]

34. Oh, and congrats on Jamaica and their famous victory over Mexico...

Whole lot of stunned folks right now...

[malaise]

36. Unbelievable

We are in shockv