Court: Trump Must Appear For Seven Hour Deposition In Defamation Case

440px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_TrumpIn a major development, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Schecter has ordered that President Donald Trump must sit for seven hours of questioning in the defamation case of former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos. The case is a defamation action is linked to Zervos’ allegation of sexual harassment by Trump. In April, I wrote a column warning that Trump’s local counsel in various states were recklessly using presidential privilege and immunity arguments to try to kill various lawsuits.  Now, just as Trump’s team appears to be moving away from a sit down with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, he will have to submit to a grueling, high-risk deposition in New York. The obvious analogies to the Bill Clinton scandal and impeachment are inescapable. 

Notably, the order allows for a substantial amount of time — far more than the couple hours that the Trump lawyers have suggested as an outside limit with Mueller.  In the Jones case, Clinton testified for a little over four hours.

Trump could certainly challenge the order, though the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones (correctly) that a president cannot claim immunity from such a civil deposition. Notably, in that decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote ” . . . it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” Of course, it would occupy more than a few hours in the end since Clinton lied under oath on April 12, 1999, the judge found Clinton in contempt of court for “intentionally false” testimony. Ultimately, Clinton’s false testimony on the Lewinsky affair led to his impeachment.  I was one of the constitutional experts called to testify as to the basis for the impeachment.  While I had voted for Clinton, I believed that he could certainly be impeached for lying under oath as a high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution.

The rejection of Trump’s immunity arguments was predictable. However, the ruling also reinforces the expectation that any defiance of Mueller will result in a subpoena and a court order to appear before the Grand Jury.

The looming issue will be whether Schecter allows questioning on other women and their allegations of assault or harassment from Trump.  As a general matter, the scope for questions is broader in a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery of relevant, inadmissible information so long as it is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Thus, if the answer can lead to admissible evidence, it is generally allowed.  Most courts allow the record to be established and then address relevancy or other issues in pre-trial motions.  Depositions allowed for theories and lines of inquiry to be tested even though much of the information may not pass muster for admission at trial. That is obviously not ideal for the President if he is asked about a pattern with other women.  Moreover, if he denies ever sexually harassing women, his veracity can be a issue in seeking information on additional women.

The deposition is set for Jan. 31st.  That is a dangerous potential time since, if Mueller puts the investigation into a holding pattern as he approaches the November midterm elections, he would be ramping up again during that period.


170 thoughts on “Court: Trump Must Appear For Seven Hour Deposition In Defamation Case”

  1. “In the fall of 1959 I spoke at one of the country’s most respected law schools, the professor in charge of teaching ethics told me the question up for discussion among his students was whether, as a lawyer, you could lie to a judge. I told the professor and later said in my speech that I thought we all been taught the answer to that question when we were 6 years old” RFK 1960.

    1. Fishbreath quotes yet another moral cripple, RFK

      Why didnt you quote Bill Clinton, that paragon of saintliness or Hillary, that destroyer of hate?

      hypocrite to the Nth degree

    2. So not supposed to lie to a judge if you’re a lawyer but okay as a senator to lie to reporters about a war crime? Regarding the Israeli attack and attempt to sink the USS Liberty: “A miscalculation that could take place anywhere in the world.” NYT 6/9/97

      I admire RFK greatly – just watched a Netflix documentary – but I was so disappointed to discover that he, too, helped cover up the assault on the Liberty.

      1. There were no war crimes, and the only one lying is you.

        1. Nope. It’s the greatest cover up in US military history. I trust the surviving sailors and marines over Israelis, LBJ, McNamara and McStain, Sr. lie. I have the greatest admiration for the Liberty Survivors who keep fighting to get this story out – 51 long years.

          1. Nope. It’s the greatest cover up in US military history.

            Only in the mind of someone steeped in Joo-discourse. You keep exposing yourself, Autumn.

            1. Sorry, the anti Semetism label doesn’t work with me. I am not anti Jew. In fact none of my Jewish friends are Zionists.

              But I do want AIPAC to stop exerting so much influence over foreign policy. How bout the hardliners exercise their right to return and fight their own damn wars and pay for them as well??

              Judaism – religion Zionism a political movement. Hell, Uncle Joe Biden claims he’s a Zionist!

              Facts are facts – the USS Liberty was deliberately targeted by our ally Israel which tried to sink it. There was NEVER an official investigation held

              “It’s a story of Israel aggression, Pentagon incompetence, official lies, and a cover-up that persists to this day.How tightly does the Israeli lobby control the Hill? ”

              “For the first time in history, an attack on an America ship was not subjected to a public investigation by Congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (exclamation points mine)

              In 1980, Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater planned to open a senate hearing into the Liberty affair. Then Jimmy Carter intervened by brokering a deal with Menachem Begin, where Israel agreed to pony up $6 million to pay for damages to the ship. A State Department press release announced the payment said, “The book is now closed on the USS Liberty.”


    1. we all know it did not involve Uranium since Hillary took care of that

        1. It is ? We know DOJ whitewashed one investigation – why not another ?

        2. Mueller has chased Manafort back to 2003.
          I can see chasing the Obama administration to 2013

      1. Ma’am, that non-existent scandal has been completely debunked. I guess it takes a long time for news to reach the 13th floor of the asylum.


    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan has joined those disputing President Trump’s assertion that federal law enforcement planted a spy inside his campaign, telling reporters Wednesday that he has seen “no evidence” to back up such claims.

    Ryan (R-Wis.) said he thought “Chairman [Trey] Gowdy’s initial assessment is accurate.” He was referring to last week, when Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said on Fox News that “the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do” in investigating information alleging certain Trump campaign advisers had suspicious ties to Russia, “and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.”

    Trump’s assertions that the bureau was engaged in a “witch hunt” that is “worse than Watergate” began last month, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) demanded a briefing from top FBI and Justice Department officials on a confidential FBI source who made contact with members of Trump’s campaign.

    In delivering his rebuke of Trump’s and Nunes’ claims, Ryan was careful on Wednesday not to disparage all of Nunes’ complaints with the Justice Department, which include several unfulfilled demands for documents unrelated to the spying accusations — but which Democrats still feel are intended to undermine the federal law enforcement agencies and, by extension, the foundations of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election outcome.

    “Normally I don’t like to comment on classified briefings,” Ryan said. “Let me say it this way: I think Chairman Gowdy’s initial assessment is accurate. I think — but we have some more digging to do. We’re waiting for some more document requests. We have some more documents to review. We still have some unanswered questions.”

    “But I have seen no evidence to the contrary of the initial assessment that Chairman Gowdy has made,” Ryan continued, adding: “But I want to make sure that we run every lead down and make sure we get final answers to these questions. I’ll leave it at that.”

    Edited from: “Paul Ryan Splits With Trump, Says ‘No Evidence’ FBI Spied On Trump”


    1. Ryan and Gowdy – both Establishment whores – pro TPP – who cares what they think?

      1. Autumn:

        Explain why TPP is bad and tariffs are good. Because right now the vast majority of economists think Trump is barking up the wrong tree with tariffs.

        1. Explain why Hillary, Obama, WaPo, Comey, NYT, LLynch and your other despcable degenerate liars should merit our attention?

          1. Explain why your name is a reversal of mine.

            One suspects your old name wore out its welcome on this blog.

        2. I do not think all tariffs are good. Any economist who supports the TPP is a neo lib. Look up ISDS which would allow corporate tribunals to by pass our own courts undermining sovereignty. Other horrid factors too numerous to list. Check out Jeffrey Sachs, Lori Wallach, Ron Paul or my fav Marxist economist Richard Wolff:

          “The TPP is a very detailed large document that is very specific in extending corporate power. It was written by corporations for corporations. The corporate media and the Washington Beltway approach this in a limited discussion which is vacuous. The media does not discuss or ask the questions which would foster real discussion which I believe would lead to a far deeper concern than now exists . Over and over they talk about increasing American jobs and the need to be part of the global economy. I would expect that any cogent discussion of so called free trade start with a synopsis of the promises verses the reality of prior trade agreements. The history of “free trade” includes the empty promises that Bill Clinton had said that NAFTA would create jobs. The country lost manufacturing jobs, it is really hard to understand how the same lame promise can be recycled for TPP which is a far broader document encompassing 12 countries and 600 participating corporations favoring greater corporate control. Corporate profits are prioritized over the citizen’s welfare and well being in TPP and TTIP. ”

            1. The rest of the world can move on without us. And they will if Trump gives them reason.

  3. Degenerated into blather. So typical of the common room in Bedlam.



    Voters could have seen this coming. After the release of that “Access Hollywood” tape, mainstream media quickly identified several women who might be sour apples for Trump. There were at least ‘8’, I believe. Zervos may have been on those lists. ..What might she tell us about Donald Trump..?

    Stormy Daniels pointed us to Michael Cohen whose dealings have become a treasure trove of intrigues. Zervos may point us towards something equally as damming.

    It was widely rumored that Trump frequently shot his mouth on “The Apprentice”; necessitating the need prudent edits. Crew members on that show all signed non-disclosure agreements. So they couldn’t describe said out-takes. But there were hints that Trump said things unbecoming to a president. Utterances that would certainly confirm people’s worst suspicions about Donald Trump. Zervos, perhaps, will shed light on those moments.

    1. Keep hoping. Maybe one of these bimbos will bring him down. Or maybe Mueller’s Democratic Party donor squad. Or maybe his tax returns. Or maybe Don Jr.’s wife will dish the dirt during their divorce proceedings. Or maybe…

      1. Nutchacah:

        “Maybe one of these bimbos will bring him down”..??

        Stormy Daniels blew a gaping hole in Trump’s bunker. Those seized files from Michael Cohen are the gift that keeps giving for Mueller and his colleagues in New York.

        And what about Trump’s tax returns..?? Funny he never showed those. And funny his supporters never bothered to ask.

        Those tax returns are probably the most damaging Trump documents to never be seen.

        1. “Stormy Daniels blew a gaping hole in Trump’s bunker”

          truly rich choice of words Peterpeter ass eater

          1. Snarky little attack, O.J. I bet you’re tough when people’s backs are turned.

        2. Stormy Daniels blew a gaping hole in Trump’s bunker.

          She has no legal case against him, the fancy that the non-disclosure agreement is a campaign contribution is a gambit that has been tried and failed in court, and his approval rating have continued to inch upward in small increments.

          And what about Trump’s tax returns..?? Funny he never showed those. And funny his supporters never bothered to ask.

          Candidates tax returns and medical records were never of much interest to anyone but reporters and editors. It wasn’t the practice to publish them prior to about 1975. Obama got away with summary statements from his doctor in lieu of the extensive disclosures John McCain practiced and the institutions he’d attended took steps to see to it that his transcripts never leaked, a courtesy that wasn’t offered John Kerry, Albert Gore, or George W. Bush.

          The media are an extension of the Democratic Party, so these disclosure requirements will never be impartial. That’s why John Kerry’s Navy files remained confidential and the Boston Globe was permitted to inspect them with the confidence that nothing embarrassing would be disclosed. OTOH, the same media were insisting that microfiche images of George W. Bush’s 32 year old pay stubs be published.

          1. Nutchacha:

            Let’s talk about Tax Disclosures. You think they’re only of interest to reporters and editors. Yet those reporters and editors are in the business of publishing disclosures. So that we, American citizens, can make our own judgements.

            I’m happy with that arrangement. And it surprises me that you find fault with the whole concept. Like only snoops really care about a candidate’s tax returns? Like ‘I’ am out of place for wondering what Trump’s tax returns could tell us? Jeb Bush might have been the nominee had Trump shown his taxes.

            But Nutchacha says, “Ah ‘forget it’..!! Only snoops wanna know what Trump paid in taxes”.

            1. You are free to wonder.

              You just do not have a right to them.

              Trump can disclose or not as he pleases – and you can make your voting decisions accordingly.

              But you are not entitled to information about someone else’s private life, just because you want it.

        3. Sure would be nice to find out what’s in HRCs emails — and on the laptop belonging to DWS re the Awan bros.

    2. Who doubts Trump said things “unbecoming a president” he does that constantly now.
      But the election is over. People voted. You get to address all that again in 2020.

      This is a defamation action. From what I can see – it is likely that Trump defamed Zervos.
      Though I am not sure there was much harm. Merely appearing on the apprentice is a scream for attention, even false denials from Trump provides her with attention. It makes he more not less valuable.

      1. “But the election is over. People voted. You get to address all that again in 2020.”

        Not exactly. If Dems prevail and take the House in November, Trump’s and his cabinet’s grifting will be spotlighted in multiple investigations. His tax returns may actually have to be produced. Could be fun. Trump will have to get creative in his use of deflections and outrages. In the end, he will fall.

        1. Then work on that. Give people a reason to vote democratic besides “Argh! Trump!”
          Unless you seriously think that is winning an election.

          Alots going to happen before Nov.

          Based on patterns todate, bad news for Trump will continue to decline.
          Bad news for everyone tied to investigating Trump will grow.

          But who knows Louis Mensch could be right and the proof of something we have seen no evidence of and is increasingly close to impossible could magically appear tomorow.
          But I would not bet the house on it.

      2. dhill:

        Trump may have uttered many things C.V. Brown would approve of. S..t like that could sink Trump, on top of everything else.

        There won’t be a 2020 for Trump. He’ll be too old, if nothing else.

        1. Hillary hopefully will be alive to see her hang herself in utter protest when anyone but her wins yet again

          One can hope

  5. Yippee! Now we can FINALLY get rid of our president. When does Hillary take office? /sarc

  6. Again, Summer Zervos is a private citizen pursuing an action in a state court. She’s not an employee of the federal executive. Robert Mueller is an employee of the federal executive. If he tries to subpoena his boss, he should be told to get stuffed.

        1. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Acting in conformance with the constitution is lawful, not lawless. It is not “above the law”

          If you do not like Trump’s actions you can impeach him – that too is in the constitution, and Trump is constrained by it.

          Do we need to keep up this made up garbage.

          If you do not like the constitution – work to change it.

          Claiming Trump is above the law when he is acting within the constitution sugests you can not read.

          1. “Claiming Trump is above the law when he is acting within the constitution sugests you can not read.”

            No one is claiming this (it’s just your strawman). What is being said is that if Mueller subpoenas Trump, Trump will ultimately have to appear to testify. Because he is not above the law.

            Changing the Constitution is hard. Witness the timeline and travails of the Equal Rights Amendment.

            1. Memo to Trump: ignore any court orders just like Obama ignored the US Constitution.

              Hillary lost. All rules have changed. Shoot from the hip, dude

              1. Trump is getting boxed in. He cannot ignore court orders forever. He could voluntarily appear and answer some limited questions, however, it would seem unlikely that he could be entirely truthful. Then, he’s looking at censure, possible impeachment, becoming an unindicted co-conspirator, conviction after his term expires. He could resist a subpoena, but then a court (ultimately SCOTUS or the Circuit Court) would order him to appear. Then, what can he do? Risk dealing with perjury and/or the truth being revealed? Assert the Fifth Amendment which would probably (at least with a normal Senate) result in impeachment? His threats to self-pardon are just hot air.

                1. 7 hours is alot of questions.

                  No trump is not getting boxed in.
                  The Russia narrative is just about dead.

                    1. First – no one outdside the left thinks firing Comey was obstruction.
                      Nor buys the rest of the left’s ludicrous theories.

                      The fact that Mueller is calling Trump a subject rather than a target means he has no workable legal theory he belives that could be obstruction.

                      There is alot more law but mostly that is not important.

                      Absent a clear smoking gun like you had with Nixon – who arranged payments to the burglars.
                      you are not going to get people to care.
                      If they do not care, your dead.

                      Another reason they are not going to care – is because you do not have an underlying crime.

                      Obstructed WHAT ? The law unfortunately does not allow you to obstruct an investigation even if you are innocent. But try to get people to convict someone they think is innocent of the crime of obstruction – it is just not happening.

                      If you want Trump you MUST find Russian collusion, or some other non process crime that people think is egregious.

                      Remember Mueller can not actually touch Trump, all he can do is try to make a case that will cause the house to impeach. Even House democrats are trying to hide from impeachment.

                      It is actually a HUGE political train wreck for democrats.
                      Something like 70% of the democrative base wants impeachment NOW.
                      But 90% of the Republican base does not, and less than 30% of the middle beleives that impeachment may occur in the future – they do not want it now.

                      In other words talk of impeachment energizes the democratic base but alienates the electorate as a whole. Do democrats want a high energy loss ?

            2. Trump can not act lawlessly with respect to something he has not yet done.

              Changing the constitution is hard – it is supposed to be, you better start now.

              In the meantime it means what it says.

                1. Then you can point out what he has done and what section of US code he has violated.

                  Given that Mueller has been unable to do that. I think you are engaged in wishful thinking.

      1. He is the chief executive. Mueller is an employee. If you want that to change, you’ll have to try impeachment proceedings. Which means you’ll have to convince members of Congress who aren’t deranged. Which is a hurdle you cannot meet.

  7. That is a dangerous potential time since, if Mueller puts the investigation into a holding pattern as he approaches the November midterm elections,

    Holding pattern? If there are any doubts this investigation is not politically motivated, watch them take a pause for the midterms…that is if the IG report and FBI personnel don’t force it to terminate.

    1. The investigation is subject to judicial review and so far, no motions filed by Mueller or his team have been overturned by the courts.

      If the investigation was motivated solely by politics, the courts would have stepped in months ago.

      Trump supporters are getting afraid. They are throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if it sticks.

      I remember during the Bush era, a Texas senator said she hoped the Valerie Plame investigation didn’t result in a “perjury technicality.” Perjury is a serious offense that can result in 5-year prison sentence. It is not a technicality.

      1. If the investigation was motivated solely by politics, the courts would have stepped in months ago.


          1. The courts would have thrown the Manafort case out as well as the guilty pleas (or at least not sentence them to any jail time) if politics were responsible for this investigation.

            Substantive evidence of crimes has been found.

            1. “Substantive evidence of crimes has been found.”

              Nope, that is actually why we have juries and trials and appeals.

              1. You seem to be overlooking the guilty pleas. Those are evidentiary.

                1. you didnt care about truth in 2015-16,so there is that to consider


                  1. This seems to be a rare non sequitur ad hominem attack. Very creative.

                2. The only person who has been sentenced is Van Der Zwaan, who plead to minor inaccuracies in his statements regarding the date he received an email.

                  Exactly what is that evidence of ?

                  Papadoulis has plead to but not been sentenced for what amounts to a false statement about his own mental state. Mifsud has repeatedly publicly confirmed the version that Mueller claims was a lie.

                  Papadoulis has not been sentenced.

                  Flynn Plead to failing to remember that his call with Kislyak touched very briefly on sanctions.
                  Strzok has said Flynn was not lying. Comey has testifed at least twice that Strzok said Flynn was not lying.

                  The Judge handling Flynn and I beleive Papadoulis has been replaced,.
                  The new guy has a big bug up his ass about prosecutorial misconduct and has ordered that Mueller turn over all exculpatory evidence before the sentencing.

                  Pleas are not final until sentencing. So it is not really proper to day that Flynn or Papadoulis plead yet.

                  Mueller is balking at providing exculpator evidence to Flynn, and everyone keeps agreeing to delays.

                  Those pleas are very likely dying.

                  1. Wrong, once again (sigh). Judge Stephens make the same order for exculpatory material to be produced in every criminal case he handles. If Mueller is balking, Flynn’s counsel should be filing a motion. Where is it?

                    1. Sullivan has has done that Order in every case since the Ted Stevens case – where prosecutorial misconduct altered the outcome of an election.

                      That is not the point. Sullivan is predisposed to see misconduct – and more than most judges now does something about it.

                      According to the original plea deal – none of this was required.

                      Mueller is balking. There is no reason for Flynn to do anything. Currently delay is his friend.
                      So long as the delay is at the request of the prosecutor, Flynn can not lose the deal.
                      But he can sit back and watch and hope as Muellers cases come apart arround him.

                      Mueller is stalling – because among other things Mueller is a paranoid bully – review his past major cases, he has a record for bullying and for being wrong.

                      Mueller is either unwilling to share his evidence with Flynn as Flynn would withdraw the deal or file misconduct charges, or because Mueller thinks Flynn would share information with other defendants.
                      It is irrelevant whether that is true. All that matters is Mueller beleives it.

                      There are alot of head games going on here. In that arena I would bet on Trump not Mueller.

                      One of the things the left does nto grasp is that Trump can afford a huge number of mistakes.
                      In fact the left has made things easier.

                      By constantly crying wolf, it is harder to get people to care when Trump makes a real mistake.

                      You have a further serious problem.

                      You are completely unable to conceive of the possiblity that there is nothing there. That Hillary actually lost. That the left is just not that well liked.

                      You operate on the premise that the outcome that did occur could not have occured without malfeasance – despite the fact that even the alleged malfeasance was not suficient to alter the outcome.

                      Regardless, because you can not accept you must beleive there is something to find.

                      Therefore instead or weighing the facts and increasingly coming to the realization it is ever more unlikely Trump did anything wrong and you will not be able to “get him”. You keep hoping that some new thing will popup.

                      Your sure that eventually Mueller will get people to roll.
                      But you can not roll if there is nothing to give up.

      2. Trump supporters are getting afraid. They are throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if it sticks.

        What do they have to be afraid of? They are not the subject of this investigation. In the meantime, President Trump will continue as President.

        BTW, why would Mueller’s investigation need to shutdown for the midterms?

      3. Very few have been challenged and lower courts rarely take strong constitutional stands against prosecutors.

      4. In the Plame affair the DOJ knew that Plame had shifted from a covert to public position more than a year earlier, that there was not only no harm, there was therefore no law broken, and that Richard Armitage had admitted to inadvertently letting Plames identity slip to Novak.

        In other words Acting AG Comey appointed Fitzgerald SC to investigate a non-crime for 3 years,
        and torture Chenney’s COS until he mistated something to an FBI agent.

        Perjury is serious – so is malicious prosecution.

        Comey testified to the house and senate PRIOR to his firing that Trump was neither a subject nor a target, that there was no russian collusion and the investigation was pretty much over.

        It is now evident that Trump actually waited until he thought the investigation was over before firing Comey, and that Comey and Rosenstein used Comey’s firing to restart a dead investigation.

        It is likely that Rosensteins ludicrously broad and stupid charge arose from the fact that it would actually be an ethical violation to restart a concluded investigation absent new evidence.

        While the public has learned much more, Mueller has not brought to light anything regarding Trump or the Trump campaign that was not known in March 2017.

        Papadoulis had already been interviewed, as had page, Comey had tried to verify the Steele Dossier and failed.

        What we have subsequently is Mueller picking the wings off flies.

        Nothing regarding Manafort has anything to do with Trump, and outside of the SC would not be prosecuted. Manafort resolved his problems with the IRS in 2014. There is no crime of conspiracy against the US, and money laundering requires an underlying crime. Manafort is going to have a long long long fight, He is likely to be convicted on some of this garbage, appeal repeatedly and eventually win.
        And by that Time Trump will be long gone.

        The charges against Papadoulis and Flynn are a disgrace.
        Papadoulis plead to lying about how important he thought his communications with Mifsud were.
        Really ? How do you prosecute someone for lying about their own state of mind ?
        How can you morally tolerate those who do ?

        Flynn is being prosecuted for a minor error of recollection, that the person who interviewed him and the FBI director at the time have all said was not a lie.

        Further 18 USC 1001 requires that the mistatement be a deliberate effort to mislead the investigation.
        There are multiple reasons that can not be true.
        One is because the interview litterally was a “perjury trap” and the courts frown on those.

        The purpose of an investigative interview is to gain information. And the purpose of 18 USC 1001 is to criminalize deliberate efforts to misdirect the investigation.

        An investigator can not gain information about a convestation that he already has a transcript of by interviewing one of the participants regarding what was said.

        Where the purpose of the interview is to catch the person being interviewed in a lie – that is a perjury trap and is impermissible.

        I would note that the interview was arranged by McCabe who has a very public grudge against Flynn.
        Flynn provided an afidavit in support of an FBI agent that filed claims of harrassment against McCabe.

        1. You have a tendency to speculate and a tendency to be wrong. Examples: there is a conspiracy alleged under 18 USC 371; a prosecution cannot be malicious if the party prosecuted is convicted. Libby was convicted.
          Manafort may be in the process of having his bail revoked and sent to prison pending trial.

          1. You can not conspire to commit a non-crime.

            “a prosecution cannot be malicious if the party prosecuted is convicted”

            Not true. There are SOME instances where you can not make a claim if you are convicted of something.
            That is actually abysmally bad policy, it encourages law enforcement to prosecute their victims whenever they make a mistake.

            If Mueller had the goods on Manafort – he would have added a charge of witness tampering.
            He didn’t this is posturing and efforts to torture Manafort further.

            1. You’re worn or lying. If I prosecute you and get a conviction, it’s over. Yes, you could thereafter sue me for malicious prosecution, but I will prevail either on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.
              A conviction is prima facie evidence of probable cause to prosecute.
              As for Manafort, it’s not clear to me if Mueller could bring the tampering charges in the same action, although he may not have to do so. He may be able to set a hearing before the judge in which she takes evidence and rules he has violated the conditions of his bail and off he goes to prison and may be fined as well.

              1. There is so much wrong with your post.

                But lets just start with this.

                Time travel does not exist.

                Logic does not flow forward or backward in time.

                A conviction DOES NOT create probable cause in the past.
                If it did no effort to exclude evidence would EVER succeed on appeal.

              2. With respect to Manafort – more has come out.
                It is highly unlikely Mueller will file charges based on this.

                Manafort’s contacts and communications can be spun to suggest misconduct, but they would never meet a reasonable doubt standard.

                Mueller is using this to punish Manafort for not kowtowing.

                It is likely the Judge will further restrict Manafort.
                The judge is and will be wrong.
                She has already issued a gag order precluding him from talking about his case.
                The courts can silence the attorney’s, they can silence the prosecutor.
                But they can not silence the defendant – that is a first amendment violation and you do not lose your first amendment rights because you are charged with a crime.

                Much of this appears to be tied to Klimatov – who might be the closest thing in this entire mess to an actual Russian Agent. Manafort would like nothing more than to drag Klimatov to the US to torture, but that is highly unlikely.

                One of the other problems that Mueller has is that initially the Ukrainians were cooperating – Manafort was working against them they have every reason to make Manafort’s life miserable and cooperate with Mueller. But many months ago they completely stopped.
                Somebody in Kiev came to the realization that screwing over the campaign manager for the US president was not a wise thing to do.

                As things go forward we are finding more and more than Mueller does not have the evidence to back up his claims.

                He indicted a bunch of Russians and 3 Russian companies in the expectation he would never have to prosecute. Failing to realize that a corporation can defend itself without risk to the principles.
                Worse still they have relatively unlimited resources and now Mueller must provide discovery.
                He has just opened a giant window into his entire case.
                And worse still he indicted a company that did not exist at the time he alleges it committed crimes.
                He is just making himself look bad.
                This is also a big deal – because this is the only Russians in Muellers crosshairs.

  8. This post makes a huge factual error. The judge in the case found Clinton to be in contempt of court in April, 1999. This is true.

    However, this finding had no bearing whatsoever on Clinton’s impeachment vote. The House of Representatives voted in December, 1998 to impeach, while the Senate voted to acquit in February, 1999.

    The Congress had already made its decision by the time the court reached its decision.

    This is why impeaching Trump right now is premature. Congress should wait until any criminal investigations or court proceedings are finished before moving to impeach.

  9. Unfortunately this wonderful dog and pony show, what from time to time is the best entertainment out there, takes place in the White House. That’s what gives it its edge, I suppose. Next week’s show, the President of the United States attends a ‘Hair-off’ with the dictator of North Korea. Coming up, the ‘No I dint, Yes you did’ episode with a porn star and a few others. Stay tuned while the whole world laughs.

    1. The US needed Donald Trump as President to clearly and unequivocally remove the label of “exceptional” nation. Mr Trump has placed the US at a level similar to the most depraved illiterate countries throughout history.

  10. Presidential privilege and immunity only extends so far, who knew?

    Many of the Trumpanistas who now think Presidential powers are virtually unliminated just a few years ago were railing against Obama’s executive orders.

    They got 1out of 2 right, anyway.

  11. I’m sure the President can fit that in between Iran and North Korea if the Left can get their butt buddies to agree to hold off on their combined war mongering.

    1. The Republicants control both houses of congess. I suppose you consider them to be leftist since they don’t support the devine right to rule.

    2. The president will notmdoubt have to miss some of Fox and Friends! He’s doing nothing or Iran or North Korea besides tweeting and accepting large envelopes!

  12. So, Summer Zevos was ticked off that the Donald wouldn’t come to her restaurant. Claims he sexually harassed her but yet when he ran for prez she wanted him to come by for publicity to increase business? Interesting it’s gotten this far….

    1. It’s clearly crazy to think that Trump, that fine Christian gentleman, would sexually harass anyone or grab their pussy or anything of that nature. Fake video!

      1. Never said he didn’t harass her – I don’t know. She seems like a grifter. Why did Gloria Allred drop her?

        1. I think Stormy, and Avenatti, are a pair of grifters, and just the sort one might expect to be connected to Donald.

  13. I’ll bet that Trump just won’t show up. “Who’s gonna make me?”

  14. Yes, seven hours is ridiculous and indicates bias against Trump. Why only seven to put it another way. I’m sure he will appeal that.

    1. Seven hours is not excessive. It’s pretty typical. How do I know. I’ve done hundreds. There is no bias here. He is being treated like any other American. I realize he thinks he’s the king but we don’t have them here so he should man up and go!

      1. JH re “I realize he thinks he’s the king but we don’t have them here so he should man up and go!”

        Best and funniest comment so far IMO

    2. After 45 years of taking depositions in a broad range of cases, I can assure you that the order is quite reasonable. Indeed, were Trump competently represented, this could have been scheduled without the necessity of court intervention.

      1. MA re: …were Trump competently represented…” That seems to be a big problem. Ghouliani and others certainly have not helped him.

    3. That “judge” is probably Mexican. All the Mexican judges are out to get President Buffoon.

    4. Under the Federal Rules, one day of seven hours is the presumptive limitation on the deposition of any individual. Our local federal judges and magistrates routinely incorporate that limit into orders when determining whether a particular witness must appear for deposition. The only exception I’ve seen recently is when the objection to the deposition was based on the physical or mental health of the deponent. Even then, the court is more likely to establish a schedule of multiple short sessions rather than reduce the overall time available.

  15. The Liberal, Leftists, Dems are using Anything they can…even an old show Trump had, to try to get him to take time AWAY from HIS PRESIDENCY, to testify about a contestant? Amazing. Keep Trying to “Play Loose and Fast Dems, with Mueller using all those who are trying to INTERFERE WITH A SITTING POTUS AND HIS RESPONSIBLITIES FOR THIS REPUBLIC. You people are REALLY SICKENING. STOP THIS ATTACK OF A POTUS, YOU LOST THIS ELECTION, AND ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH, WHAT IS NOT THERE. WHY DON’T YOU IDIOTS GO BACK TO “TRUMP’S KINDERGARTEN DAYS AND FIND OUT WHAT HE DID THERE, SINCE YOU WANT TO KEEP THROWING CRAP, AND HOPE SOMETHING STICKS AND YOU CAN OUST HIM FROM OFFICE.”

    1. Dude, WHAT’S WITH THE SHOUTING? It’s freekin unreadable, BTW!

    2. I agree, can we please keep our attacks on presidents only if they are democrats?

      1. Is that how you are spelling Obama and Clilnton these days. Typical leftish illiteracy.

      2. TtI – I agree. But we still have all the garbage from the Dems – heard of the Awan brothers?

      3. “Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”

        Jeremiah 13:23

        1. WB – sounds like you are projecting. You are not interested in the truth or you’d be concerned about the cyber spying. Oh, yeah, it’s all good because it’s the Dems right?

            1. Hollywood – quite right. And Conservative sites like Judicial Watch have called this out as well as Progressives. Sessions is not doing his job. The Awan bros should be a TOP priority IMO.

    3. Your caps key is stuck and it’s making you look like a raving idiot.

    4. The Dems are not responsible for the Mueller investigation. They do not control Congress nor the Dept of Justice. Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, appointed Mueller.

      This is a self-inflicted wound by Trump’s legal team. If he offered this woman enough money, she probably would have settled with him 6 months ago.

      1. The Dems are not responsible for the Mueller investigation. T

        No, scheming Justice Department lifers are. Funny that Justice Department employees send 95% of their political contributions to the Democratic Party.

    5. 7 hrs? At most, he might miss a round of golf and only tweet 2 times that day.

  16. I argued at the time that SCOTUS should not have allowed Jones case against Clinton to proceed until after he left office.
    But they did and it was stupid to think the courts would disagree this time.
    I think that 7 hours is excessive.
    This is a defamation case. What matters should be what Trump said and is it true, and after that what harm did it cause.
    I am not sure how Trumps conduct with other women is relevant to whether he defames Zervos.
    Unless she is claiming a pattern of defamation.

    Frankly Trump should have settled.

    1. The defamation is based on Trump calling her a liar regarding Trump’s alleged behavior. The other women can help establish the veracity of her claim by establishing that he was a serial sexual abuser. If you are looking for whether or not Trump actually defamed the other women, one need only look to statements like, all the women were “horrible, horrible, liars!” Trump defamed them all so their testimony should be allowed to show the pattern.

      Worse yet for poor Donald, the discovery requested includes all the outtakes from The Apprentice where Trump has been alleged to be seen groping and harassing women, and using misogynist and racist language comparable to the Access Hollywood video. And think of how many times he could perjure himself in 7-hours. I wonder if Melania has a lawyer yet?

      1. Trump lives in non-Enigma’s head………… free! Such a deal!

          1. Say when are all these facts to be presented? Saying is not doing and so far hot air does not add up to more than BS.

            1. So to sum up your last two replies; we must ignore all Trump’s transgressions until you’re satisfied that Clinton has been dealt with and you also are ignoring all the facts.

              Unrelated question, in what universe does Scott Pruitt, he that had his staff trying to help his wife get a Chick-Fil-A franchise and ordering used Trump mattresses and paying a woman to not come to work… still have a job?

              1. same world of politics that led JFK to purchase land for a post office so de la Beckworth went free. Both parties corrupt.

              2. Nope.

                But the left is not permitted to intepret the law so narrow it does not exist with respect to its own and so broadly that all are criminals against its enemies.

                The rule of law, not man requires at the very least that the law applies equally to all.

                There are rants from those on the left repeatedly here – that “no one is above the Law”.
                Where were those with regard to clinton.

                It is unbeleivably obvious that the Clinton investigations – where no one had the slightest difficulty identifying a specific crime that was being investigated – 18 USC 793(f). was an excercise in going through the motions, the outcome was pre-determined and everyone involved knew it and spoke openly of it.

                While no one can identify a specific crime that Trump or his campaign committed.
                After a protracted FBI investigation found nothing and the FBI director was fired, that director and cronies in DJ/FBI leveraged that firing into apointing an SC who is accountable to no one, to conduct a counter intelligence investigation – which the SC law does not authorize for the purpose of prosecuting people criminally. The FBI has separate criminal and counter intelligence divisions with a chinese wall between them to protect our civil rights. The Mueller investigation was improperly structured to allow the limitless use of investigative methods that are severly restricted in order to protect our rights according to counterintelligence rather than criminal guides and still nothing was found.

                If Mueller had found Trump hiding and destroying documents and emails, destroying laptops and hard drives. lying to the courts, he would have been impeached long ago. Yet all those and more occured during the clinton investigation.

                Mueller wants a protracted interview of Trump – and is unwilling to provide a justification of the need for that interview, while Clinton was interviewed off the record for a short period with a co-conspirator acting as her lawyer, with full knowledge of all evidence and she claimed to not remember almost anything as a result of tripping a year earlier.

                No one wants Trump treated with kid gloves. But we do want the rule of law, not the rule of man.

                Hold Trump to whatever standard you choose, but accept that the entire obama administration is going to be held to the exact same standard.

                Hopefully with a guillotine hanging over your heads the left will start following the law as it was intended – narrowly.

                1. “Mueller wants a protracted interview of Trump – and is unwilling to provide a justification of the need for that interview, while Clinton was interviewed off the record for a short period with a co-conspirator acting as her lawyer, with full knowledge of all evidence and she claimed to not remember almost anything as a result of tripping a year earlier.”
                  Right, sure, but she testified twice at great length before the Benghazi committee.
                  Meanwhile, a more relevant example is Bill Clinton. In January, 1998, he gave a 4 hour deposition in the Jones case. In August, 1998, he gave 4 hours of testimony before Starr’s Grand Jury.
                  But somehow, Trump does not have to testify?

                  1. And she lied.

                    I would further note that she was Sec State testifying about her conduct as Sec State

                    The objective was to understand the mistakes made at benghazi to avoid them in the future.

                    If you have a government oversight basis for congress to interview Trump – go for it.

                  2. I opposed the SCOTUS decision allowing the Jones suit to proceed.
                    But that is the law now.
                    Trump must sit for the Defamation Depo in Manhattan.
                    Though 7 hours for a defamation deposition is excessive.

                    Mueller has no basis to question Trump.

                    1. 7 hours with breaks is standard. And given Trump’s tendency to filibuster, 7 hours may not be enough. We’ll see how circumspect he can be.

                      Now, what does this mean: “Mueller has no basis to question Trump.”

                      The bases include the allegation that Trump has engaged in obstruction of justice and the allegation that he and/or his associates have conspired and cooperated with a foreign power in subverting the 2016 election.
                      You might note that on even numbered dates, Trump has said he really, really wants to talk to Mueller. And we know he has the best words.
                      You might also note that he has occasionally said, “No collusion.” This would be his opportunity to demonstrate that assertion.

                    2. For Mueller to question Trump on obstruction he would likely have to call him a target.
                      He does not have the basis to do so.

                      Your trapped in one of the fundimental problems of the stupid obstruction argument.

                      There are few if any acts that are legal that become illegal because of your intentions.

                      I suspect Trump really does want to talk to Mueller.
                      I am certain Trump’s lawyers have told him if there is any possibility in Hell that you can avoid Mueller you are not being questioned.
                      Gulliani has pretty much confirmed exactly that.

                      Trump has been a witness many many times before, and he has done very well.
                      But it is still a huge mistake for him to allow himself to be questioned if he does not have to.

                      You have no connection to Russia – the Russia collusion thing is dead.

                      Papadoulis does not appear to have contacted real russians, and Page did not contact anyone actually connected the the Kremlin. Worse still it is starting to look as if they were setup.

                      Because the case has failed publicly, Trump has nothing to prove.
                      Testifying will not prove no collusion. fewer and fewer people beleive that anymore.

              3. The government is entitled to 40hrs of government paid time/week – no wait, it is government, that is 35 or is it 30 ?

                What Pruitt’s staff does after that is up to them.

                  1. Your own article strongly suggests there are time and attendance records etc.
                    Her peers are denying the allegations.

                    What appears to be going on that has entangled Pruitt is a cat fight between Dravis and and Portman that has resulted in attacks on Pruitt and EPA.

                    They are both out of the administration – though aparently there is one person still tied to this personal issue that is not.

                    That is like claiming that HRC is responsible for Weiner’s dick pics.

          2. Pity the Trumpanistas, shooting the messenger is all they have left.

      2. I’m all i;n favor as long as the cases of victimization are taken in turn first the Clintons as they take historical precedence. Fair is fair and after all to quote Bubbas “I need to get back to the business of the people.”

        Thus we easily forget the preponderence of critical problems have been are still from the actions of the left.

        1. There is no begin/end.

          Defamation is an after the fact private consequence for false speach that damages the reputation of another.

          You are free to defame someone. You will not go to jail for it. The government will not charge you.

          But if you speach falsely damages the reputation of another.

      3. Like Clinton – Trump should settle, but that will not likely occur.

        Your claim to pattern evidence is getting too attentuated.

        If I understand correctly Zervos has made very specific claims against Trump, that are either provable or not essentially either Zervos defamed Trump or Trump defamed Zervos.

        I am not sure why Trump’s testimony is needed at all.

        If Zervos proves the conduct she asserted occured this is over. And if not the case should be dismissed.

    2. Settled what? This is just Another Bimbo the Dems have dug up, like the Porno Stormy….It’s when he wasn’t in office, as Bill Clinton WAS. This is MORE ‘Digging, and the Witch Hunt, which I’m sure these broads are being paid Plenty to come forward, They need to be counter sued by Trump for their accepting money from Bad Actors who want to just get Trump Out of Office. Let’s be honest here folks…MORE DEM ANTICS, WITH HILLARY AND HER BAND OF CORRUPTIBLES!

      1. Speaking of which and referring to the very close very tight race in Alabama this past year there still has been NOT ONE law enforcement officer, NOR ONE District Attorney nor State Attorney General NOR ONE Judge at any level who accept the allegations against Roy Moore and to this day there has been NOT ONE allegation accepted as a charge accepted. Not One. Less than One and all the Bimbo’s there and in Washington DC have Always disappeared.

        1. What do you mean by “accept?” I thought all the allegations were old enough that any prosecution based on the allegations is barred by the statute of limitations? If so, it would be improper for any court or prosecutor to act on them.

      2. Calling women “broads” (itsjo) or “bimbos” (Aarehun) shows the kind of disrespect of women that I see in men who abuse women. These terms dehumanize which makes the abuse easier.

      3. There is very little difference between this case and Jones.

        Clinton was governer not president when the harrassment took place.

        I do not like Clinton and gloat whenever he gets caught. I think he is a far more repugnant person that Trump – and that is bad.

        But the president should not be subject to civil lawsuits for events prior to his election, democrat republican, trump clinton does not matter.
        But SCOTUS found otherwise, and therefore it applies to Trump.

        1. “I do not like Clinton and gloat whenever he gets caught. I think he is a far more repugnant person that Trump – and that is bad.”

          You are on the wrong side of history. IF, note I say IF, Trump gets impeached, he’ll be convicted.

          1. There are a large number of things that Trump could do that would result in impeachment.

            There are few that would result in conviction.

            Based on the facts we now have the “russia collusion” claim is near impossible.
            Worse still based on what the FBI knew at any given time – there was never a basis for an investigation.
            This was political. It was worse than Watergate. It is what Nixon wanted to do but could not.

Comments are closed.