Trump Jr. and Manafort reach deal with Senate panel to avoid public hearing

[NRaleighLiberal]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee have cut a deal with President Donald Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to avoid a high-profile public hearing next week, with the two men agreeing to provide records to the panel and to be privately interviewed ahead of any public session.

In a joint statement, panel Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dianne Feinstein said, &quot W)e will not issue subpoenas for them tonight requiring their presence at Wednesday's hearing but reserve the right to do so in the future."
The committee has issued a subpoena for Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the political firm that compiled a dossier at the center of the federal Russia probe.
Attorneys for Simpson say he will not accept the committee's invitation to testify Wednesday.

snip

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/trump-junior-manafort-agree-to-negotiate/index.html

[cstanleytech]

1. So will they be required to swear under oath or will they be allowed to avoid doing that so as to

avoid being charged with perjury?

[dhol82]

4. You mean like Bush/Cheney

Testifying like twins?
Still remember that bit of lunacy.

[Leghorn21]

2. Welllllllllllllllll crap. nt

[dhol82]

3. Hope they will revisit shortly after

Pissed that these creeps won't have an airing to the public.

[drray23]

5. why are they allowing that ?

The only reason that one might want to testify in private is when there is secret information that could be divulged. Neither Manafort or Don Jr. have a top secret clearance hence they cant have a legitimate reason. If they do have top secret info then they should be thrown in jail since they did not have the clearance to deal with it.

[forgotmylogin]

21. Probably the public embarrasment.

Of being raked over the coals by people who are not friendly to their agenda.

[diva77]

6. I'll be calling Feinstein's office to ask exactly why

[DK504]

19. Exactly.

I am damn tired of all the behind the scenes bullshit by Congress. WE deserve to know what and how many laws have ben broken.

[Mr.Bill]

7. Actually this makes sense.

Why interview them in public until the committee reviews all their documents. Donny Jr is the kind of weasel that might even throw some people under the bus if he can do so in private.

I served on a civil Grand Jury for two years. You would be surprised at what people will divulge if they know it is in secret.

[OnDoutside]

10. Good point, thanks. Two years was a long time, how did that work ?

[Mr.Bill]

12. The Civil Grand Jury

is unique to California. Each county empanels one every year. They are charged with investigating public agencies and departments and making recommendations for improving efficiency and shining a light on shortcomings. They investigate no criminal matters, and if anything criminal is turned up in an investigation it is turned over to the DA. The County Counsel acts as the juries legal advisor and the jury has subpoena powers. We have the power to put people under oath.

They publish a collection of reports at the end of their year and county officials are bound by law to make written responses regarding their recommendations.

I was the Foreman pro tem for two years and spent about four days a week on it. We were paid $15 a day, and 39 cents a mile for our driving expenses. After two years, you can not serve a third consecutive year. This prevents a small group of people from taking control for any extended period of time. It was one of the lowest paying and rewarding things I have ever done. I am on a first-name basis with just about every elected official and department head in my county.

The Civil Grand Jury take a lifetime oath of secrecy. All that is open to the public is the published report.

[OnDoutside]

14. Fantastic idea, and congratulations to you.

[Mr.Bill]

15. Thank You

Many other states also had similar Grand Juries, but one by one they got rid of them. I'm pretty sure California is the only state doing this still. And if politicians had their way, they would get rid of us. But we are mandated in the state constitution, so not easy to get rid of us.

Another really cool thing I didn't mention is we had our own building exclusively for our use. It was a former courthouse built in the 1880s. It was small, sort of like a one room schoolhouse but it had great atmosphere and it was a reminder of the history and importance of our work.

Great bunch of people, too. There were 19 of us and we were all volunteers, so by definition we were all people willing to try to make our county a better place to live and work in.

[janx]

11. I agree with you.

I'd love to see them interviewed in public but they would be much more hesitant in a setting like that.

[Mr.Bill]

13. And so far Trump officials

have established a pretty good record of lying under oath, or just refusing to answer and so far getting away with it.

[janx]

24. There is also the theatrical element to consider.

I assume that there's less theater involved in a closed setting.

[diva77]

16. interesting - had not considered that angle

thanks for educating me!

[former9thward]

34. Grand juries may be secret but Congressional investigations are not.

It does not matter they are "private" interviews. What is said will be leaked. Trump Jr. knows that. Manafort knows that. Everyone knows it. Private interviews are just less theater.

[Mr.Bill]

35. But the atmosphere is different.

I think that's enough to change what the substance of the interview will be.

[Not Ruth]

8. Glenn Simpson might want to lawyer up

Does he have the tapes? Any tapes?

[old guy]

9. Just more evidence the Senate/House investigations are a waste of time and money.

Now the people under investigation set the rules. Why not just let them submit the questions too.

[orangecrush]

25. Sure sounds that way.

[Honeycombe8]

17. So much for transparency. We the people deserve to hear the answers. nt

[jpak]

18. ...

[Crash2Parties]

20. What's Feinstein's husband's name again?

Oh, that's right, Richard Blum. The Goldman Sachs guy who sold off billions in prime US Postal Service real estate to his Goldman Sachs buddies, sometimes no-bid & usually below market value? His company made a Billion dollars off those deals.

[Still In Wisconsin]

22. Throw the lot of 'em in the hoosegow.

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)

It would be LONG overdue.

[diva77]

23. "hoosgow"

I learned a new vocabulary word. Yay!

[sprinkleeninow]

27. Hoosegow. Slammer. Clink. That's the ticket! eom

[Judi Lynn]

26. They wouldn't want to besmirch their glowing public reputations by answering rude questions

from Democratic Senators.

Bless their darling hearts.

[Alice11111]

29. Funny. Thx

[Alice11111]

28. Deal. WTF? Does anybody there have a backbone?

[mr_lebowski]

30. How long has 'subpoena' been a synonym of 'friendly invitation to testify, if you're cool with it?'

You know, as opposed to 'a requirement to show up and answer questions, under penalty of law'?

Can somebody explain to me the meaning of word 'subpoena'?

Starting to feel like MISSED SOMETHING ... for like ... my entire adult life?

Oh, wait ... it's really just CNN soft-pedaling on behalf of the ruling elite, isn't it? Okay that's something I believe I've come to understand.

Also, is it just ME ... or wasn't DTJ bragging to anyone and everyone like 1 week ago that he'd just couldn't WAIT ... to testify before Congress, to like, you know ... set all them Democrats straight?

Now, it's only one week later, but he's apparently furiously back-pedaling and demanding to be treated like the entitled special snowflake he has always been? GOT IT!

[Justice]

31. Will the interviews be under oath?

[awesomerwb1]

32. Any answers for Feinstein?

This is gonna sound mean but sometimes she looks like she doesn't know where she is.

[L. Coyote]

33. K & R