DOJ Blocks Trump's Deposition

[gab13by13]

Teflon Don wins again, and it wasn't his lawyers who won the stay in Trump having to give a deposition in the Peter Strzok/ Lisa Page lawsuits, our DOJ did the work for Trump. A District judge had ruled that Trump must give the deposition on May 24th, but DOJ intervened. Here is what judge Amy Barret Jackson said:

"The Court is somewhat surprised to learn that since then, the parties have done nothing more than wrangle over the order of the two depositions," Berman Jackson wrote. "The government seems chagrined that the Court did not order that the deposition of the FBI Director be completed first, but it may recall that it was the Court’s view that it was Director Wray, the only current high-ranking public official in the group of proposed deponents, whose ongoing essential duties fell most squarely under the protection of the doctrine in question."

The doctrine referenced by the judge says that the lower-ranking government official should be deposed first in case their responses make it unnecessary to interview the higher-ranking official.

The judge also defended her earlier ruling.

"The Court’s ruling was appropriate in light of all of the facts, including the former President’s own public statements concerning his role in the firing of the plaintiff," Berman Jackson wrote.

[lapucelle]

1. Trump's deposition wasn't blocked. It was put on hold until after Wray testifies.

DOJ asks judge to put Trump deposition on hold in lawsuit from ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/justice-department-trump-deposition-peter-strzok/index.html

Justice Dept. seeks to put Trump deposition on hold in case of FBI agent fired over text messages

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fbi-justice-department-strzok-page-c1492a0ac421efb21fa3e9c86c67ba5a

-----------------------------------------------------

Do you have a link for your story?

[gab13by13]

4. Put on hold certainly blocked Trump's deposition on May 24th.

My question to you is, why is DOJ involved in the first place, that is my question. DOJ got involved in E. Jean Carrolls' first lawsuit against Trump, that's why it got bogged down and now DOJ has inserted itself once again in another Trump lawsuit which the judge is pretty much saying was unwarranted. The DOJ doctrine is that the lower DOJ official should be deposed before a higher ranking official, how the hell does that apply here? Strzok and Page haven't even deposed Christopher Wray.

I want to know why DOJ intervened in this case, on what grounds. If my use of the word stay is legally wrong then I apologize, why did DOJ put a hold on Trump's deposition.

[lapucelle]

7. The DOJ is involved because Peter Strzok is suing the DOJ. The DOJ is the defendant.

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok sues DOJ over his firing for anti-Trump texts

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok filed suit against the Department of Justice on Tuesday, arguing he was wrongly fired for sending private text messages that ripped Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-sues-doj-over-his-firing-n1039696

[malaise]

2. Exactly how did he win?

Isn’t this about whose deposition comes first?

[gab13by13]

3. Read what judge Amy Barrett Jackson said,

why is DOJ involved in this deposition?

[lapucelle]

8. The DOJ is involved because Peter Strzok is suing the DOJ. The DOJ is the defendant. N/T

[Beastly Boy]

5. So what work did DOJ do for Trump, exactly?

DOJ cannot unilaterally block depositions. It was the same judge that ruled in favor of Trump's deposition on the 24th who reversed her decision, ruling in favor of DOJ's request and reasoning.

And this is DOJ's fault... how? Not the judge's fault? And what is the work that was done for Trump anyway, regardless of who did it?

BTW, Trump's lawyers didn't ask for the stay. So what did they win? An appeal in light of a violation of a doctrine that will now never happen?

[gab13by13]

6. No one has answered my question,

why did DOJ intervene in the case? Under what grounds? DOJ is basically telling Strzok and Page how they must do their lawsuits.

Judge Jackson never admitted she made a mistake, she defended her original decision that Trump had to give a deposition but then deferred to DOJ.

[lapucelle]

9. The DOJ is involved because Peter Strzok is suing the DOJ. The DOJ is the defendant. N/T

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-sues-doj-over-his-firing-n1039696

[gab13by13]

11. Thank you, now it is clear.

Excuse my ignorance. DOJ's argument to the judge about forcing Wray to testify first still doesn't hold any water.

[lapucelle]

21. The DOJ is doing this by the book. There is an established protocol

for the order of witness depositions, going up the chain of command from least senior to most senior witness.

[onenote]

12. Your question has been answered several times. DOJ didn't "intervene" -- they are the defendants.

The suit was brought in 2019 against Attorney General Barr, "in his official capacity," FBI Director Wray, "in his official capacity", the DOJ, and the FBI. When Barr resigned and Garland became AG, he was as a matter of course substituted as the defendant because the suit (because the suit was brought against Barr in his individual capacity but as AG).

I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you.

[gab13by13]

16. I said I understood now why DOJ intervened,

I do not agree with DOJ's argument about why Wray "needs" to testify first. What does DOJ mean when it says that after Wray testifies that Trump's testimony may be moot? DOJ is certainly aware of what Wray is going to say.

[onenote]

18. Again, DOJ didn't "intervene". They were sued. It wasn't optional.

And the principle that DOJ is attempting to uphold is the well-settled "apex" doctrine. They are less concerned about Trump (who isn't a defendant in this case) than they are of ensuring that in future cases that principle is adhered to.

The DOJ position in this case -- and remember, they are defending the agency -- is that what matters is why the decision makers in the DOJ fired Strzok and Page. If the testimony establishes that they made that decisions independent of anything Trump was saying or doing, the need for Trump's testimony would be, as the court acknowledged, obviated.

[Beastly Boy]

13. I did answer your question.

DOJ did not intervene in the case. DOJ requested that the judge reconsider her decision, which she did, to prevent objections from Trump's lawyers that a certain doctrine has been violated. It is the judge telling everybody how her court is going to be run, not DOJ. Strjok and Page are bound by these rules as much as DOJ is, and as much as Wray and Trump are.

Did you really expect the judge say "I fucked up" in her ruling? The fact that she reversed her decision speaks for itself. And it is never good optics, except the judge being honest and reversing her decision.

Now answer my questions.

[gab13by13]

10. I found this on a right wing rag, The Hill

"But the Justice Department (DOJ) said on Thursday in a filing that it planned to ask a federal appeals court to block Trump’s deposition unless Jackson reconsidered its request that Wray be deposed first. The department argued the FBI director must sit for his deposition first as the lower-ranking official, saying his testimony could make the need for Trump’s moot."

So once Federalist Society member Christopher Wray testifies the DOJ says there may not be a need for Trump to testify, why not?

[Beastly Boy]

14. Why do you discount the possibility that trump's deposition may not be needed?

Who said that Trump MUST testify regardless of circumstances?

[gab13by13]

15. DOJ laid it all out,

Does anyone honestly believe that Trump had nothing to do with DOJ firing Peter Strzok?
Does anyone honestly believe that Christopher Wray will testify that Trump was involved?

DOJ said that Trump's deposition may be moot, under what circumstances would it be moot? If Wray says Trump was complicit or if Wray says Trump wasn't complicit? Even a dummy like me can figure that one out. Once Wray exonerates DOJ there is no need for Trump to testify. What if Wray and Trump are complicit?

[Beastly Boy]

17. What do beliefs have to do with due process?

I thought I was clear in why I "believe" DOJ requested a stay in Trump's deposition. It is to avoid possible future objections of Trump's lawyers, which can derail the whole case to an unpredictable extent. It was not meant to establish who wasn't complicit, or was complicit, or to what extent. A damn smart move. Doesn't mean that Trump's deposition WILL be moot or will be blocked.

And DOJ spelled out, to the satisfaction of the judge. But, evidently, not to your satisfaction. Tough.

[onenote]

22. You seem to be under mis-impression that DOJ's job is help the plaintiff

DOJ is the defendant.

[Kingofalldems]

19. Ahhh--another 'Trump wins' post.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. You've been corrected by many others, yet your false headline still stands

You quoted the RW rag the Hill, when you could have simply gone to emptywheel for a fact based report, often sourced directly from court transcripts.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/05/11/doj-attempts-to-stave-off-may-24-trump-deposition-in-peter-strzok-lawsuit/

In this case, DOJ hopes that Chris Wray will say he didn’t pass on any of the political pressure he was getting from Trump to fire Strzok to David Bowdich, who did the firing. If he does, DOJ claims, then there’s no need to depose Trump, who will say he was demanding that Strzok be fired

A lot of the details in DOJ’s filings in the court records are redacted, so it’s not possible to know the whole story with clarity and certainty at this time, but it is possible to create threads in the topic without making stuff up.