The *best *people. Little short guys that wear yarmulkes.
There’s also the point that what Clinton did was sign a deposition. That’s gong to be a more difficult thing to have someone do for you. And this is one reason there is so much fancy foot-work going on (or that will go on) when Mueller gets to the point where he wants to interview or depose Trump. Depose Trump. Funny little double entendre, there! 
That second sentence is undeniably true.
The first is mostly true. It’s certainly possible to convict the CEO for perjury, but it requires building proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively knew about the shenanigans. That’s hard, and indeed might be almost impossible if he has underlings willing to fall on their swords and swear that they were the malefactors and the Big Boss was lily-white and smelled of violets.
And since that kind of shelter is not often available to non-rich people, your second sentence’s truth is affirmed.
Sure, but assembling the proof is the problem. CEOs have been held liable, but typically that’s because underling who were going to held liable have become willing to testify that the Big Boss knew the whole time what was going on. Then a jury, or a judge, can legally find that fact to be true. But if there is no direct evidence, then obtaining a criminal conviction for perjury is very difficult.
Not impossible. But difficult.
And in regards to RTFirefly’s point “…we have equally strong assertions by Clinton and Trump, equally subject to charges of perjury if false,” the answer is that we don’t. One guy was lying about a personal event in which he participated, so proof of the lie essentially proves his knowledge of the deception. The other guy was affirming the actions of a whole bunch of people, and criminal law is loathe to impose vicarious liability.
Sure. And if I were representing Trump, I’d handcuff him to the Oval Office door before I’d let him give a deposition under oath. I doubt there’s legally sufficient evidence right now to convict him of anything, fevered liberal dreams notwithstanding.
But the guy can’t stop lying. And if he sat down in front of a video camera, a stenographer, and swore to tell the truth, he’d be walking himself right into an indictment.
And with the president there is the added dimension of those underlings being pardoned for falling on their swords, so they might be less reluctant to do so.
Yes.
You know, I think that if I were stuck in an elevator with Mr Trump, and I said to him that I liked his judicial appointments but couldn’t stand his lying, he’d be offended. Genuinely offended. I think he thinks he doesn’t lie, and if I brought up specific examples of his saying things that weren’t true, he’d handwave them aside as puffery or exaggeration for effect. Which are, of course, other words for things that are factually untrue.
But I think in his soul, such as it is, he genuinely believes people should know what he means, and he is blind to the fact that saying shit that’s untrue and claiming excuses for it is what’s meant by “lying.”
In other words, I think Trump’s able to lie to himself with ease, repeatedly, and with no consequences.
No one tells the truth more or better than Trump does. He’s the absolute best Truth Teller that ever existed.
I think you may be right.
I’ve know people that end up in such twisted tales they start believing it themselves. Even when I called them on it. It’s a psychological problem, but not a reason to excuse them of it IMHO
Or reward them with the most powerful office in the world.
The initials “O.J.” pop into mind. I think O.J. has denied that he killed his wife so many times that he really believes it.
I agree with what y’all are saying about Pres. PantsOnHead and lying, but there’s the added nuance that he doesn’t seem to know that some things are facts and some things are made up. I think he believes that everything is made up in one way or another and you just have to shout everyone else down. Isn’t there a developmental stage/age where children become aware that making up shit isn’t the same thing as if the shit really happened? Prior to that they aren’t really capable of “lying.” In the old-time Catholic Church where I grew up, that point was called the “age of reason,” and children weren’t eligible for their first Confessions and First Holy Communion until they were at the age where they knew right from wrong. Trump has yet to attain the age of reason. :dubious:
Which is essentially what an impeachment proceeding is. The signed tax return may not be referred to the Senate, but it’s certainly probable cause for a hearing.
Excuse my poorly-applied legal speak: I learned everything I know about the judicial system from Jack McCoy. My assertion of the principle stands.
Sure.
Impeachment doesn’t even need probable cause. There is no legal standard for impeachment except whatever a majority of the House decides.
On the criminal front, you’re probably right: the signed return could serve as part of a probable cause case for a grand jury. But even then, there would have to be an initial investigation that assessed what roles other people in the foundation had before a rush to the grand jury – and in the federal system, charges generally must come through a grand jury.
60 Minutes is breaking a story that for 8 days in May 2017, immediately after Comey’s firing, people at the highest levels of the FBI were seriously considering trying to mobilize the Cabinet to initiate a 25th Amendment removal of Trump. As in, they were discussing which Cabinet members would support such an action, and which ones would oppose it, to see if they would have sufficient support.
Interesting. IF TRUE, 60 Minutes is saying/suggesting that they have proof that some members of the FBI were trying to undo the results of the last general election. How unpatriotic of the FBI.
or as Patrick Kiser twitted -
*Patrick Kiser @PatrickKiser1
Wow, no matter what your party affiliation or ideology, this is scary stuff. Our FBI and Justice Dept. was attempting to overthrow the government. Yet, many of them are still employed…How?*
What should the FBI do if they think the President is mentally incapacitated or might be an agent of a foreign government? I assume, as patriotic Americans, they put country before party.
I assume that the FBI would start with actual evidence of a crime. An FBI that begins an investigation based on the political agenda of a few agents, or leaders, doesn’t seem to be doing it’s job properly.
Well, there was this around that time:
and this:
Donald Trump’s disclosures of classified information
Seems like enough to get started.
Since then, the public has learned a lot more about his campaign chairman, National Security staff, and others. I assume the FBI knew about these crimes before we did.
I’m pleased to inform you that being mentally incapacitated is not, at the time of this writing, a crime.
But it would be reason to invoke the 25th.