Should Trump testify under oath?

YouTube

Here is an interesting audio of Trump and the press yesterday. On the tape, you can hear the press ask Trump if he would testify under oath with Mueller, to which he responded, yes. You can then hear the glee in their voices as they ask if he has a date set for the executio.....er......um.....interview. Clearly they have nothing and this is the last ditch attempt to bring him down. Just catch him in a lie just as Bill Clinton was trapped with the blue dress. Any lie will do.

If you were the lawyer for Trump, would you let him do it?

I do understand why Trump says he wants to testify under oath. I think he is certain that he has nothing to hide, but when it comes to lawyers, that can change rather quickly. He also wanted to rub it in the face of Hillary because Hillary was not forced to testify under oath with the FBI. After all, they wrote her exoneration letter before the investigation began. If she had been forced to testify under oath, no judge or DOJ or FBI could have saved her from her endless lies and they would have been forced to throw her behind bars.

YouTube

Originally posted by @whodey
[youtube]4t_W6ga9QWQ[/youtube]

Here is an interesting audio of Trump and the press yesterday. On the tape, you can hear the press ask Trump if he would testify under oath with Mueller, to which he responded, yes. You can then hear the glee in their voices as they ask if he has a date set for the executio.....er......um.....interview. Clearly they have ...[text shortened]... lies and they would have been forced to throw her behind bars.

[youtube]wbkS26PX4rc[/youtube]

NO!

Originally posted by @whodey
[youtube]4t_W6ga9QWQ[/youtube]

Here is an interesting audio of Trump and the press yesterday. On the tape, you can hear the press ask Trump if he would testify under oath with Mueller, to which he responded, yes. You can then hear the glee in their voices as they ask if he has a date set for the executio.....er......um.....interview. Clearly they have ...[text shortened]... lies and they would have been forced to throw her behind bars.

[youtube]wbkS26PX4rc[/youtube]

Your BS and lies never stop.

As Michael Flynn found out, not being under oath does not prevent one from being found guilty of a federal felony if you lie in an interview with FBI agents.

And no matter how many times you claim HRC was exonerated before the investigation even started it remains a falsehood.

Trump won't wind up testifying; he's about the worst liar in history and if he does he'll be doomed.

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
NO!

Scared?

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Your BS and lies never stop.

As Michael Flynn found out, not being under oath does not prevent one from being found guilty of a federal felony if you lie in an interview with FBI agents.

And no matter how many times you claim HRC was exonerated before the investigation even started it remains a falsehood.

Trump won't wind up testifying; he's about the worst liar in history and if he does he'll be doomed.

From the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/18/trump-asks-whether-james-comey-was-truthful-about-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.e259234a554e

It has nothing to do with me lying. Clearly people disagree with your estimation that HCR was not exonerated before the investigation based on the evidence and virtually no one agrees with you that HCR never lied, especially after the Youtube that clearly shows her lying that I posted. Why not just put her up for saint hood and be done with it?

As for lying to the FBI being a felony even though not being put under oath, that is news to me. Why then is it necessary to place one under oath?

Originally posted by @whodey
From the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/18/trump-asks-whether-james-comey-was-truthful-about-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.e259234a554e

It has nothing to do with me lying. Clearly people disagree with your estimation that HCR was not exonerated before the investigation based on the evidence and virtually no o ...[text shortened]... not being put under oath, that is news to me. Why then is it necessary to place one under oath?

I can't read your link because I'm over the limit for free WP articles and don't wish to spend money on it.

Please specify who states that HRC was "exonerated before the investigation".

Why you continue to make the blatantly false charge that I have ever claimed HRC never lied is quite beyond me; it must be related to you being a dishonest partisan hack. I did challenge you and other right wing partisans to present a single instance of her lying regarding the e-mail molehill in a way that would warrant perjury or false statement charges; you miserably failed to do so. I don't waste my time with You Tubes (which are usually heavily and misleadingly edited), so you'll have to go through her actual testimony though we extensively covered this ground in 2016 with you producing nothing to substantiate your claims.

All this is, of course, a desperate attempt at deflection to impede Mueller's investigation. It seems fairly clear that is not going to work.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
I can't read your link because I'm over the limit for free WP articles and don't wish to spend money on it.

Please specify who states that HRC was "exonerated [b]before the investigation".

Why you continue to make the blatantly false charge that I have ever claimed HRC never lied is quite beyond me; it must be related to you being a dishonest ...[text shortened]... t deflection to impede Mueller's investigation. It seems fairly clear that is not going to work.[/b]

The emails outed Clinton and dnc, now text messages are outing the doj/fbi. You are on the wrong team son! Democrats thrived when things could be hidden. The digital age is their undoing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-fbi-texts-appear-to-show-early-2016-discussion-of-clinton-special-prosecutor/ar-AAvbmXE?ocid=spartandhp

Originally posted by @no1marauder
I can't read your link because I'm over the limit for free WP articles and don't wish to spend money on it.

Please specify who states that HRC was "exonerated [b]before the investigation".

Why you continue to make the blatantly false charge that I have ever claimed HRC never lied is quite beyond me; it must be related to you being a dishonest ...[text shortened]... t deflection to impede Mueller's investigation. It seems fairly clear that is not going to work.[/b]

Since you can't seem to pay your fair share of your bills with the Washington Post, I've found a rabid right wing report from Newsweek on how Comey exonerated Hillary before the investigation.

http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-fbi-clinton-emails-drafted-statement-686140

As for Hillary lying, they danced around not using the term Gross Negligence cuz that could have been used to prosecute her under the law. Instead, he used other language like, "really, really bad judgment".

Pathetic. And yes, the Youtube I provided shows to all her open lies that contradicted Comey. According to you, lying to the world, which the FBI is in, is ground enough to prosecute her.

Thanks for that.

Your apologetics for the most corrupt political figure of our life time is duly noted.

Originally posted by @whodey
Since you can't seem to pay your fair share of your bills with the Washington Post, I've found a rabid right wing report from Newsweek on how Comey exonerated Hillary before the investigation.

http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-fbi-clinton-emails-drafted-statement-686140

As for Hillary lying, they danced around not using the term Gross Negligence cuz ...[text shortened]... that.

Your apologetics for the most corrupt political figure of our life time is duly noted.

The FBI started investigating the whole e-mail molehill late in the summer of 2015. After about nine months of investigation, Comey, like virtually every legal expert who weighed in on this issue, concluded that there was no basis for charges. You can claim a million times that "Comey exonerated Hillary before the investigation" but it remains a blatant falsehood.

The rest has been covered ad nauseam particularly in the thread "No indictment" back in the Summer of 2016. Nothing has been uncovered since then that changes the reality that charges under the Espionage Act would have been completely unwarranted, political theater. Ironically, the probable result of such charges would have been the election of a Democratic President; HRC would have surely had to withdraw and Trump would have almost certainly lost to a replacement Dem without Hillary's low approval ratings.

I cannot imagine that Trump's "oath" means much.
He is so consumed by his own alternate reality he
does not know fact from fiction.

Most of us know people like this in our own sphere.
Never realised one would become POTUS.