Will we impeach him this time?

Yes actually, a skilled lawyer can. Which is exactly what the 5th amendment protects us from.

 

All I see is "if"

 

There's no crime which he couldn't be charged with he's being asked to testify about. It cannot be a perjury trap just because he's guaranteed to lie.

 

As if there's a solid line there. One of the favorites that cops use is to ask a suspect how much they weigh. Since most people lie about their weight automatically, it can be used by a prosecutor to "show a pattern of deception" or what have you. It's a basic American right not to fall into that sort of legalized trickery.

If you dig into anyone's life deep enough you'll find some place where they have crossed the law. It's easy to do when there are so many laws and they are allowed to accumulate for decades. Same as bleeding a corporation dry by forcing everyone to work to the letter of the company's procedures. A lack of flexibility means problems can cascade.

What Trump is facing is someone saying "Yea, we've been up your ass for about 3 years, doing our best to find you guilty of something, but we've hit some snags and would like for you to come in and testify against yourself, under oath, so that we can try once more to legally fuck you".

So I don't wonder at all why he's not walking into that.

Clinton should have taken the same position, but then, he was actually guilty. Still, impeaching him was a massive waste of time and taxpayer resources. This time around the democrats are wasting it all with nothing to really show. Probably has something to do with the never Trumper republicans turning coat, again. And they seemed to think Trump was going to be easy to fool.

 

I don't know. I feel like Trump is essentially a dishonest guy; perjury trap or not. He would be misguided to set foot into a courtroom with the way he's trying to play the American public. Are we supposed to believe he's honest?

 

If you listen to right wing radio, it's not that your supposed to believe he's truthful, we've just moved beyond such pedestrian concepts of truth and lies.

 

and/or maybe it's too PC to be honest!

 

A trap is a trap, I didn't inject the perjury issue into this. I won't speculate on the nature of charges that have not yet occurred. After all this time I'm still not convinced there's anything worth going after or it would already be in court. So this latest maneuver looks like more dancing for the straws.

What I am beginning to think though is that setting up a well-connected rich guy must be very complicated. Especially if he can confound a criminal investigation, with tw!tter. Amazing really. Welcome to the 21st century, with (early) 20th century politics.

 

So what's the problem? To show, or not to show, that is the question. If he's such a pathological liar he can't trust himself to tell the truth or can't tell the truth without incriminating himself, whose fault is that? He's being given the choice: Put up or shut up!

 

You can if they fail to take an oath. These things can be sworn over a bible or taken when you put legal documents in court.

 

You may be overgeneralzing here from personal experience. I doubt that Trump would be asked questions about his weight or health. Not germane to the inquiry or material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it's not perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a fact material to the legal outcome, e.g., eligibility for Social Security benefits. You just know Trump s a dishonest, lying bastard, and not too bright at that. Any lawyer working with him would advise him not to appear.

 

What does that even mean? He appears and refuses to be sworn in?

 

If he refuses then he is going against court orders. You need to look up how many years he could get if he refuses to take an oath and gets done for perjury.
Here in australia it’s 10 years.
Perjury is lying under oath.
From wikipedia
The original 1787 text of the Constitution of the United States makes three references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); and in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution. A fourth appears in Amendment IV, all warrants must be supported by evidencegiven under oath or affirmation.

On Friday, March 4, 1853, Franklin Piercebecame the 14th President of the United States and has been the only president to date who affirmed rather than swore to the oath of office.[citation needed]

 

That would be the case if this were a usual defendant subpoenaed in a criminal trial. We're talking about the sitting President of the United States. Yes, he has to take an oath of office, and he did that. As a practical matter, it wouldn't be feasible to prosecute a President for violating his oath of office, although theoretically it would be possible. The problems of objectively proving intent would be too great.

I thought we were talking about his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, the equivalent of the indictment in a criminal trial, or his participation in the Senate impeachment trial. Congress has never subpoenaed a sitting president to seek to compel testimony. Chairman Nadler hasn't subpoenaed him, just given him a chance to appear if he wants to. The Supreme Court held that Nixon could be compelled to comply with a subpoena for tapes and documents during the Watergate investigations; that's how we got the Watergate tapes. Clinton testified voluntarily after he was subpoenaed ad testificandum by Independent Counsel Ken Starr. And that testimony did result in his impeachment--for perjury, among other things. Trump could appear and plead the 5th, which wouldn't look good. He could also move to quash the subpoena on grounds that he has immunity from such process. In that case, the Court would have an opportunity to make new precedent.

 

Why? It's great PR for them impeach Trump. The people who don't agree with that are not going to vote for her anyway.

 

turkey .. what a yam.. oh potato.. beans .. stuffing... winning.. cranberry .. cream corn..