Trump testifies for over 4 hours in deposition about 2015 alleged assault at Trump Tower
Source: CNN
"We examined Mr. Trump on a variety of issues including statements he has made at various campaign events and rallies that counsel believes encouraged violence at those events or encouraged security guards to engage in violence or the confiscation of property," said Benjamin Dictor, attorney for the men who filed the 2015 lawsuit.
Dictor declined to characterize Trump's testimony or answer whether he believed it to be truthful.
"The President was exactly how you would expect him to be, he answered questions the way you would expect Mr. Trump to answer questions and conducted himself in a manner that you would expect Mr. Trump to conduct himself," Dictor said.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/18/politics/donald-trump-deposition-2015-case/index.html
You'll hear the details WHEN the case goes to trial, not before. Any inconvenient "leaks" would likely get the deposition thrown out.
CincyDem
(6,416 posts)If the settle its because he think he was shit.
If he doesnt, he think he did well
I predict a settlement soon. That tape will never see the light of day (or a courtroom).
maxsolomon
(33,449 posts)He said so much without saying anything...
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,064 posts)Leith
(7,814 posts)To use a current "thing,"
Say that tfg was an asshole without saying he was an asshole.
NH Ethylene
(30,821 posts)Now we know just how it went.
ms liberty
(8,620 posts)I can read between the lines on that statement!
Pretty tactful way of getting his point across.
Hekate
(90,978 posts)OldBaldy1701E
(5,195 posts)But I wish whenever a journalist was writing/speaking about that orange gibbon, they would make sure to say FORMER President... preferably with that level of inflection.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,064 posts)OldBaldy1701E
(5,195 posts)I should have said 'when people refer...' as in the person being quoted. I stand corrected.
Mike Nelson
(9,978 posts)... he spoke for four hours, under oath.
Hekate
(90,978 posts)azureblue
(2,155 posts)"The President was exactly how you would expect him to be, he answered questions the way you would expect Mr. Trump to answer questions and conducted himself in a manner that you would expect Mr. Trump to conduct himself,
If this isn't a case of condemning with faint praise, I don't know what is. I can almost see Dictor trying to stifle a laugh when saying this.
getagrip_already
(14,934 posts)That is how I would have expected him to testify......
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)electric_blue68
(14,995 posts)"If this isn't a case of condemning with faint praise, I don't know what is. I can almost see Dictor trying to stifle a laugh when saying this."
azureblue
Baaahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
Response to azureblue (Reply #8)
electric_blue68 This message was self-deleted by its author.
WHITT
(2,868 posts)Sounds like he got just what he needed.
rpannier
(24,350 posts)"The President was exactly how you would expect him to be, he answered questions the way you would expect Mr. Trump to answer questions and conducted himself in a manner that you would expect Mr. Trump to conduct himself,"
In other words he pissed and whined and moaned, claimed the mantel of martyrdom and sniveled the whole time
ecstatic
(32,777 posts)He becomes a feeble person who can barely read, see or understand what's going on. NOTHING like his normal loud/vile/obnoxious persona.
Irish_Dem
(47,697 posts)Champp
(2,114 posts)Republicans love their Whiner-in-chief
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)Doodley
(9,163 posts)lawyers knew he wouldn't be able to keep his story straight.
former9thward
(32,121 posts)grumpyduck
(6,278 posts)never ask a question under those circumstances unless they already know the answer, things may get interesting from here on.
Mr. Ected
(9,675 posts)MR. Trump.
All the while he's in the courts trying to claim executive privilege!
rurallib
(62,477 posts)marble falls
(57,425 posts)Blue Owl
(50,547 posts)LudwigPastorius
(9,233 posts)So, he lied, threw a tantrum, crapped his diaper, and started flinging it at everybody?
sakabatou
(42,198 posts)Scrivener7
(51,075 posts)deposition took place is not secret.
Wish we were hearing about other depositions taking place.
But we aren't.
FSogol
(45,579 posts)gave a rambling, nonsensical testimony where he blamed political enemies for setting him up, denied everything, and then admitted he did it, but is immune to prosecution due to executive privilege.
twodogsbarking
(9,885 posts)He can't be anything else.
Marcuse
(7,554 posts)brooklynite
(94,911 posts)Court cases are not built around "what he really meant was" assertions. Unless he factually called for violence on Jan 6, it would be disallowed as evidence.
Marcuse
(7,554 posts)brooklynite
(94,911 posts)Marcuse
(7,554 posts)Similar behavior prior or subsequent to 2015 could show that it was a habit or practice which Trump routinely employed and did employ against the protesters in 2015. Its conceivable that he was asked about 1/6.
Quotes: [link:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766|
brooklynite
(94,911 posts)Trump said nothing at the Jan 6 rally that would likely be admissible as advocating violence.
Marcuse
(7,554 posts)[link:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/03/donald-trump-incited-capitol-attack-by-any-legal-test-column/4370622001/|
It's quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president's speech at the rally, it's an agonisingly close case.
It's pretty goddamn imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you. There wouldn't be any time for better counsels to prevail because you're just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
He said we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we're very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he's covering himself. In the end, I think it's a jury question.
I'm not sure he's entitled to a dismissal of charges as a matter of law. There's some discussion that government leaders have more leeway, but I don't know how that would play out.
He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.
][link:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437|
brooklynite
(94,911 posts)This is a civil suit brought regarding an incident in 2015. In this case and others, Trump clearly advocated violence against protesters. He did not make similar comments on Jan 6, 2020. A claim that "his supporters knew what he meant" would not be admissible in this case.
Marcuse
(7,554 posts)Nevertheless, evidence that he has a chronic habit of inciting violence against perceived opponents, including but not limited to Members of Congress, could be admissible to prove that he did exactly that in front of Trump Tower that day.
Whiskeytide
(4,463 posts)protestors in 2015. The allegation is essentially that he at least encouraged his thugs to violence during his rallies prior to the protest event in question. I suspect the questioning was pretty well limited to that alone.
Marcuse
(7,554 posts)Similar behavior prior or subsequent to 2015 could show that it was a habit or practice which Trump routinely employed and did employ against the protesters in 2015. Its conceivable that he was asked about 1/6.
Whiskeytide
(4,463 posts)to rely upon as a basis for the admission of evidence. But the scope of discovery is broader than the burden of admissibility at trial, so I suppose he might have been asked about it. Whether they get it into evidence is a murkier question.