https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873879934040780801

Anyone taking odds on who will win?

I bet that Trump is going to shoot himself in the foot one way or another. At best he may look like he is stupid or just avoiding the questions. At worst he will commit perjury.

A commentator said that if Trump testified under oath, he'll likely get the death penalty.

A commentator said that if Trump testified under oath, he'll likely get the death penalty.

That's probably exactly what Comey thought (only to himself of course) about Clinton, which is why he never put her under oath and only questioned her in the presence of her lawyer (Cheryl Mills) who was also a subject of the very same investigation. That's some prime Quantico quality law enforcement investigative work there.

I never understood why Bill Clinton was impeached, the whole thing seemed silly to me.

Why can't presidents just plead the Fifth Amendment like everyone else? Now that I read it, the Fifth Amendment explicitly states it does not protect the president or members of the military...but why? The Fifth Amendment makes basic sense to me, it should not even need to be stated and granted as a privilege, it should be understood as a logical fundamental of any court proceeding from the start.

And even if you have no Fifth Amendment protection, so what? Just lie then, when people ask you questions you don't want to answer, and you think they have no other way to find out the truth. Worst case you might get convicted of perjury, but even then the original activity should be considered, and it could be something silly like with Bill Clinton....or it might be a heinous crime and you get the death penalty but in that case you had nothing to lose by perjuring yourself.

I never understood why Bill Clinton was impeached, the whole thing seemed silly to me.

Why can't presidents just plead the Fifth Amendment like everyone else? Now that I read it, the Fifth Amendment explicitly states it does not protect the president or members of the military...but why? The Fifth Amendment makes basic sense to me, it should not even need to be stated and granted as a privilege, it should be understood as a logical fundamental of any court proceeding from the start.

And even if you have no Fifth Amendment protection, so what? Just lie then, when people ask you questions you don't want to answer, and you think they have no other way to find out the truth. Worst case you might get convicted of perjury, but even then the original activity should be considered, and it could be something silly like with Bill Clinton....or it might be a heinous crime and you get the death penalty but in that case you had nothing to lose by perjuring yourself.

Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice affords Service Members the ability not to self incriminate similar to the protections of the fifth amendment.

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-6-pre-trial-procedure/831-article-31-compulsory-self-incrimination-prohibited


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Impeachment is not the same as criminal indictment. The President can be impeached and not go to jail. Ford pardoned Nixon of any potential crimes he was being investigated for. President Pence could do the same except if he was impeached then President Pelosi could... wait, never mind.

That's probably exactly what Comey thought (only to himself of course) about Clinton, which is why he never put her under oath and only questioned her in the presence of her lawyer (Cheryl Mills) who was also a subject of the very same investigation. That's some prime Quantico quality law enforcement investigative work there.

Not sure what you are getting at. Clinton would always be entitled to have a lawyer present and she is smart enough and rich enough to know not to go into a meeting with a federal agent without a lawyer.

I never understood why Bill Clinton was impeached, the whole thing seemed silly to me.

Why can't presidents just plead the Fifth Amendment like everyone else? Now that I read it, the Fifth Amendment explicitly states it does not protect the president or members of the military...but why? The Fifth Amendment makes basic sense to me, it should not even need to be stated and granted as a privilege, it should be understood as a logical fundamental of any court proceeding from the start.

And even if you have no Fifth Amendment protection, so what? Just lie then, when people ask you questions you don't want to answer, and you think they have no other way to find out the truth. Worst case you might get convicted of perjury, but even then the original activity should be considered, and it could be something silly like with Bill Clinton....or it might be a heinous crime and you get the death penalty but in that case you had nothing to lose by perjuring yourself.

Bill clinton committed perjury, thats why he was indicted as I understand it.

I just read the 5th amendment with the wikipedia link you provided and I cannot find where it said that it does not protect the president or the military. Where are you getting that from?

Perjury is a felony, at least here in Hawaii. Not sure that is something you wanna just think of as minor.

Not sure what you are getting at. Clinton would always be entitled to have a lawyer present and she is smart enough and rich enough to know not to go into a meeting with a federal agent without a lawyer.

I believe it's objectively very clear. But explain what part you're having trouble understanding and I'll be willing to spent one minute explaining it to you.

But first... read the sentence that my two sentences were a response to, then read my two sentences. If it's still beyond your comprehension, let me know.

Bill clinton committed perjury, thats why he was indicted as I understand it.

I just read the 5th amendment with the wikipedia link you provided and I cannot find where it said that it does not protect the president or the military. Where are you getting that from?

Perjury is a felony, at least here in Hawaii. Not sure that is something you wanna just think of as minor.

He also obstructed justice. I had to look it up only because I remember there were 4 charges and he was impeached on two of the charges. But I couldn't remember what the other charge(s) was.

I believe it's objectively very clear. But explain what part you're having trouble understanding and I'll be willing to spent one minute explaining it to you.

But first... read the sentence that my two sentences were a response to, then read my two sentences. If it's still beyond your comprehension, let me know.

I thought rklapp was saying that if Trump testified under oath that Trump would get the death penalty. I figured he was referencing how stupid Trump can be when speaking publicly.

However if he meant that Comey would get the death penalty then I understand now what you meant in your comments.

He also obstructed justice. I had to look it up only because I remember there were 4 charges and he was impeached on two of the charges. But I couldn't remember what the other charge(s) was.

The two counts not passed by the House were (1) abuse of power, and (2) a second perjury charge in the Paul Jones case.  The articles of impeachment included (1) obstruction of justice and (2) perjury in front of a grand jury.

As far as the President goes, he's the top cop of the nation -- the chief executive.  Only the House can prefer charges against him.  If he doesn't feel like testifying, he can not be compelled.  The President enjoys Executive Privilege, and therefore has more protection against providing evidence that may incriminate him.  Taking the 5th means refusing to be a witness against yourself.  Executive Privilege provides that protection and more.

President Clinton is the only president since Nixon to exert Executive Privilege and lose in court.

I thought rklapp was saying that if Trump testified under oath that Trump would get the death penalty. I figured he was referencing how stupid Trump can be when speaking publicly.

However if he meant that Comey would get the death penalty then I understand now what you meant in your comments.

I'm sorry, but I'm taking my one minute of self-allotted explanation time to explain that I'm not even going to try to explain this. Maybe ask someone else. I'm pretty sure almost everyone/anyone else understands it.

I just read the 5th amendment with the wikipedia link you provided and I cannot find where it said that it does not protect the president or the military.

Perjury is a felony, at least here in Hawaii. Not sure that is something you wanna just think of as minor.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now that I read it yet again though, maybe the military exception clause only applies to the first part of the Fifth Amendment, which isn't the self-incriminating part we are concerned with here.

Perjury is a serious charge but I think it should be considered what was the original activity that was lied about. If Bill Clinton said under oath "I drank orange juice this morning" but then a videotape surfaced of him drinking apple juice, why should he be impeached? That's how I view what happened to him...am I still missing something? The Fifth Amendment, Executive Privilege, Article 31 of Military Justice, etc should only provide him further protections.

I'm sorry, but I'm taking my one minute of self-allotted explanation time to explain that I'm not even going to try to explain this. Maybe ask someone else. I'm pretty sure almost everyone/anyone else understands it.

So my understanding given the alternate interpretation of his comment is still inaccurate?

Whatever, I thought we were in disagreement but now I  figure we if his comment is interpreted differently. I don't care, explain, don't explain, it doesn't really matter.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now that I read it yet again though, maybe the military exception clause only applies to the first part of the Fifth Amendment, which isn't the self-incriminating part we are concerned with here.

Perjury is a serious charge but I think it should be considered what was the original activity that was lied about. If Bill Clinton said under oath "I drank orange juice this morning" but then a videotape surfaced of him drinking apple juice, why should he be impeached? That's how I view what happened to him...am I still missing something? The Fifth Amendment, Executive Privilege, Article 31 of Military Justice, etc should only provide him further protections.

I agree, it wasn't the best hill to die on. Yes he committed perjury but yes it also wasn't something of great consequence, only a moral flaw. But therein lies the question, do we apply the law to everyone who breaks it or just the ones we think more serious? (Rhetorical question)