Article II, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution provides that before entering office the newly elected president “shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'”
Since Hillary can hardly swear or affirm this oath honestly or in good conscience, given her history of placing herself and those around her above the law whenever convenient, it is reasonable to ask whether taking the Fifth might offer her a way to avoid false swearing. After all, she is obviously not oblivious to the shield it provides inasmuch as she has already surrounded herself with minions who have taken the Fifth on a number of occasions to protect themselves, or her, from criminal prosecution. Indeed, at this point it would seem that a willingness to take the Fifth must be a virtual job requirement for those considered for positions close to her.
According to Lawyers.com, the Fifth may be invoked only when the following requirements are met:
• Compulsion. The amendment protects only compelled communications….
• Testimonial. The amendment protects only testimony—that is, speech or writings that disclose information in the individual’s mind.
• Self-incriminating. Compelled testimony is self-incriminating if it’s reasonable to think that it would support a conviction or provide a link in the chain of evidence leading to a conviction.
The compulsory oath to protect and defend the Constitution seems to meet all these requirement for someone who has shown such disregard for it. True, the “conviction” she risks facing once in office is not necessarily for a crime with a prison sentence but a Senate verdict convicting her of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in an impeachment trial, but that would seem a rather nitpicking reason to deny her the privilege. If an ordinary citizen has access the the privilege against self-incrimination, why not a president-elect?
Given the well-known Clintonian predilection for devious and duplicitous grammatical deconstruction (“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”), perhaps a better argument for why Clinton The Sequel can take the oath without committing perjury would be, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘Constitution’ is.” It could mean something as broad and amorphous as “the law” or as narrow and specific as the original founding document.
“I do solemnly swear,” President Clinton The Second could solemnly swear with a straight face, with Bill standing behind her and whispering in her ear, “that I will ensure that the Constitution on permanent display at the National Archives has a permanent 24-7 security detail always on duty to preserve, protect, and defend it.”
Anyone who thinks I am guilty of hyperbole here must have forgotten Hillary’s assurance — in her first press conference on the matter March 10, 2015 — that her home-brew private server was perfectly safe and secure:
Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.
The private server revelation arose from the Benghazi hearings…which were dismissed by the Democrats as a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘waste of taxpayer dollars’.
Cicero
The private server revelation arose from the Benghazi hearings…which were dismissed by the Democrats as a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘waste of taxpayer dollars’.