If Bill Clinton could be compelled to testify under oath before a grand jury

[Lord Ludd]

about a BJ & then get impeached for lying to the grand jury about said BJ, why can't Drumpf also be compelled to testify under oath (to Congress, to the FBI, name your venue) about whether or not he committed the clearly treasonous act of betraying the military, next to which Ukraine pales in comparison (relatively speaking) as a matter of national security?

I'm aware that Clinton's testimony was connected to Paula Jones's civil suit, while the current affair has no legal action attached to it (yet), but heavens to betsy, gosh & golly, holy fuck, we've got to amend the constitution to require a sitting president to potentially perjure him- or herself in the case of a High Crime such as this, where impeachment AND REMOVAL will surely follow. (And no 5th Amendment for you, Mr./Madam President.)

In the meantime, can't someone with standing (like maybe all the troops in Afghanistan) sue the fucker & make him testify under oath?

[Baked Potato]

1. Adhering to the Law and Constitution is so last Presidency ago.

[AleksS]

2. Dude, you know the law is only for Democrats

The law isn’t for republicans! The (R) stands for “_R_eally doesn’t have to follow the law.”

At least that’s what I heard on Fox News.

[StevieM]

3. He did tell the truth to the grand jury. Ken Starr was always going to charge him with perjury

no matter how he testified.

Some of the reasons Starr gave were comical. And by the time the case went to the House Judiciary committee and the Senate trial, nobody could say exactly what he lied about.

The American people didn't get that because they were confusing his grand jury testimony with his testimony in the Jones deposition.