Franken: Trump Jr., Manafort need to testify under oath

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 07/23/17 09:58 AM EDT

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said on Sunday that Donald Trump Jr. and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort should testify under oath. During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Franken was asked whether it was good enough for the two to testify behind closed doors and not under oath.

"No, that's not good enough," Franken said. "It should be under oath." Franken said he would like to ask questions about whether they had any other meetings with the Russians.

The comments come after lawmakers announced last week that Trump Jr. and Manafort reached a deal with the Senate Judiciary Committee to avoid appearing at a public hearing.

Manafort and the president's eldest son are the focus of new attention after reports that they attended a meeting, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, with a Russian lawyer. An email setting up the meeting promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would be provided by the Russian government.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/343354-franken-not-good-enough-for-trump-jr-manafort-to-not-testify-under-oath

[Sneederbunk]

1. Behind closed doors, maybe. Not under oath, unacceptable.

[OnDoutside]

2. Can't Democrats on the committee create a fuss over that ?

Seems like they're rolling over.

[herding cats]

3. Franken didn't even know about it until Trapper mentioned it to him this morning.

Which doesn't really sound like they're rolling over, it sounds more like they're being excluded.

[OnDoutside]

5. I thought that was out there last night ?

[herding cats]

6. All that was reported initially was it would be behind closed doors in what I read.

There was no mention of it it would be under oath or not, and if that's a part of what Grassley negotiated the Democrats should have been notified of such, which Franken was not. As he said, if that's true he was unaware of it and it's not alright.

[BigmanPigman]

13. I watched it too and thought he said he was "going to look into it" implying he could change it if

it is true afterall. Can he do that?

[mobeau69]

4. Not Under Oath is Bullshit n/t

[Delphinus]

9. Agreed.

Not that it will stop them from lying - look at what they've done so far - but it would at least give them more reason to tell the truth.

[Mike Nelson]

7. Dems sould...

...refuse to participate if they do not answer questions in public, and under oath - 11 hours, if needed, like Hillary did. And, if they don't agree, the leakers should drop another bombshell on them.

[pnwmom]

8. If this happens, every single Democrat should ask some version of:

"Why won't you swear to tell the truth ?"

"Why should we believe you since you haven't sworn to tell the truth?"

"First you said X and then you said Y. Why won't you swear now that you are telling the truth?"

"What is the point of this hearing if you won't swear to being truthful?"

"Are you concerned about perjury charges? Is that why you won't swear to tell the truth?"

"James Comey swore to tell the truth. Why won't you?"

[left-of-center2012]

10. Remember what Donnie Senior told us

"I will never lie to you!"

[Sunlei]

11. Under oath & on the record- These people work for us- it's OUR Federal government not their casino.

[rockfordfile]

12. If the republicans are not under oath, then there isn't any point to them being question.

[truthisfreedom]

14. Al would be great behind a gavel.