Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Lyricalinklines

(367 posts)

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

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Sun Jul 23, 2017, 11:43 PM

Jul 2017

...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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Al Franken wants them 'under oath'! [View all] malaise Jul 2017 OP

"Not under oath" means Nevernose Jul 2017 #1

Hilarious that folks who did nothing wrong malaise Jul 2017 #2

These guys will lie their asses off even under oath. panader0 Jul 2017 #11

But if under oath, there could be consequences. N/T. Whiskeytide Jul 2017 #16

You're correct awesomerwb1 Jul 2017 #35

Excellent news. Franken is an asset to America sharedvalues Jul 2017 #3

Thank goodness Chuck "Snake in the" Grassley is making it so easy for them ProudLib72 Jul 2017 #4

Where are Schumer and Pelosi? Golden Raisin Jul 2017 #5

Agreed malaise Jul 2017 #6

My thinking, keeping their powder dry to launch a attack to get them to testify in public MiddleClass Jul 2017 #10

Grassley is giving them permission to lie ThoughtCriminal Jul 2017 #7

Under oath or not, lying to Congress is a crime. Kaleva Jul 2017 #8

So why not put them under oath then, if it doesn't matter? sharedvalues Jul 2017 #12

What is the advantage in having the witness under oath? Kaleva Jul 2017 #13

Good question. Why does Congress ever put anyone under oath? sharedvalues Jul 2017 #15

Did some Google searching Kaleva Jul 2017 #18

If under oath, there are two statutes. If not, only one. sharedvalues Jul 2017 #17

Making false declarations is easier to prove Kaleva Jul 2017 #20

Or one witness and corroborating evidence. 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #25

Yes, but perjury is more remarkable. It goes on record. 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #19

But perjury is harder to prove then making false statements Kaleva Jul 2017 #21

harder to prove when they have intercepts and witness statements? 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #24

Perjury is very hard to prove Kaleva Jul 2017 #26

Actually it is not necessarily hard to prove. See above. 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #28

And James Clapper {{{chuckles}}}... Purveyor Jul 2017 #33

I have to laugh at the concept that under oath means anything in this administration Awsi Dooger Jul 2017 #9

It matters. Especially when there is proof and it goes to credibility. 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #22

Will WH press ask Trump about their "no oath" testimony? oasis Jul 2017 #14

If you don't testify under oath, then you deem yourself to be above the law. Efilroft Sul Jul 2017 #23

One of Al's questions should be "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ... Qutzupalotl Jul 2017 #27

UNDER OATH goddammit! How many lies have been told already while NOT under oath? flibbitygiblets Jul 2017 #29

Time to call folks. This is BS. 58Sunliner Jul 2017 #30

So, Mark McGwire talking about steroids was important enough to be under oath, but this isn't? MrPurple Jul 2017 #31

Seems to me the republican committee is seeking to limit potential... Lyricalinklines Jul 2017 #32

Oh, and congrats on Jamaica and their famous victory over Mexico... Blue_Tires Jul 2017 #34

Unbelievable malaise Jul 2017 #36