Trump testifies for over 4 hours in deposition about 2015 alleged assault at Trump Tower

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

(CNN)Former President Donald Trump answered questions under oath for about 4 1/2 hours Monday as part of a lawsuit brought by men alleging they were assaulted by his security during a demonstration outside Trump Tower in 2015, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said.

"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]

1. Trump will communicate his assessment of the deposition via a settlement offer.

If the settle it’s because he think he was shit.

If he doesn’t, he think he did well

I predict a settlement soon. That tape will never see the light of day (or a courtroom).

[maxsolomon]

2. Top shelf shade.

"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.

He said so much without saying anything...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Wow, I had a similar reaction. Nobody has thrown so deep shade with such class & professionalism. nt

[Leith]

7. It was impressively diplomatic

To use a current "thing,"

Say that tfg was an asshole without saying he was an asshole.

[NH Ethylene]

10. That's a great statement.

Now we know just how it went.

[ms liberty]

11. This. I was impressed and entertained. n/t

[llmart]

19. +1000

I can read between the lines on that statement!

Pretty tactful way of getting his point across.

[Hekate]

34. I was very impressed with that statement

[OldBaldy1701E]

3. I know it is not standard procedure

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]

6. Perhaps you missed the first word of this article. . . . nt

[OldBaldy1701E]

32. Ahh... you are correct

I should have said 'when people refer...' as in the person being quoted. I stand corrected.

[Mike Nelson]

4. Hmm...

... he spoke for four hours, under oath.

[Hekate]

35. He lies when his lips are moving, without conscience

[azureblue]

8. Trump's conduct

"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]

17. in other words... he lied repeatedly and contradicted facts at every turn,......

That is how I would have expected him to testify......

[monkeyman1]

24. his testimony probably look's like swiss cheese ?

[electric_blue68]

25. 😄 ...

"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!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂

[WHITT]

9. Ouch

"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.

Sounds like he got just what he needed.

[rpannier]

12. "The President was exactly how you would expect him to be, he answered questions the way you would e

"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]

22. Based on footage from another deposition he did

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]

30. Yes I am sure he has a standard performance for depositions that has worked for him in the past.

[Champp]

29. Accent on whining.

Republicans love their Whiner-in-chief

[monkeyman1]

13. fake investigation ! i'm a victim here ! I have executive privilege !

[Doodley]

14. And yet he got away without testifying when he was impeached the first time, because his

lawyers knew he wouldn't be able to keep his story straight.

[former9thward]

27. The Senate never called on him to testify.

[grumpyduck]

15. Well, if its correct that lawyers

never ask a question under those circumstances unless they already know the answer, things may get interesting from here on.

[Mr. Ected]

16. Love to hear him referred to by the proper appellation:

MR. Trump.

All the while he's in the courts trying to claim executive privilege!

[rurallib]

18. over/under on true statements: 2

[marble falls]

20. So all 45's minions need to do is to leak some sordid bits and 45 skips? I don't think so.

[Blue Owl]

21. Bwah!

[LudwigPastorius]

23. "Trump...conducted himself in a manner that you would expect Mr. Trump to conduct himself"

So, he lied, threw a tantrum, crapped his diaper, and started flinging it at everybody?

[sakabatou]

28. Only four hours?

[Scrivener7]

31. Yes, leaks of the contents of the deposition would be inappropriate. But the fact that the

deposition took place is not secret.

Wish we were hearing about other depositions taking place.

But we aren't.

[FSogol]

33. "Dictor declined to characterize Trump's testimony" I'll characterize it: Trump

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]

36. Trump was Trump.

He can't be anything else.

[Marcuse]

37. Re his Modus Operandi pattern, was the Defendant interrogated about his actions on January 6?

… statements he has made at various campaign events and rallies that counsel believes encouraged violence at those events…

[brooklynite]

38. Why would he?

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]

39. Didn't he?

[brooklynite]

41. What quote are you thinking he said?

[Marcuse]

42. We know he was asked about statements at rallies which could show a pattern of inciting violence.

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. It’s 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]

43. Yes, those were the campaign rallies in 2016 which are documented.

Trump said nothing at the Jan 6 rally that would likely be admissible as advocating violence.

[Marcuse]

44. We will see about that, but I'm interested in whether insurrection was raised in the deposition.

Trump’s defense lawyers have tried to make this a complicated question of constitutional law, but it’s simple. They claim that the freedom of speech that is the “backbone of all American liberties” is imperiled. It is not. The Supreme Court’s test for discerning what is advocacy and what is incitement to violence is so stringent that it let Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, off the hook. Although it is not required in an impeachment trial, even if we do apply the test, the results are clear: Trump incited insurrection.
[link:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/03/donald-trump-incited-capitol-attack-by-any-legal-test-column/4370622001/|

If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?
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]

46. But THIS is not THAT case...

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]

48. No doubt he tried to cover himself with a figleaf of peace on 1/6.

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]

40. Unlikely. This case is about his security people assaulting ...

… 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]

45. #42 above

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. It’s conceivable that he was asked about 1/6.

[Whiskeytide]

47. It is possible. Habit is often difficult ...

… 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.

[Marcuse]

49. We know he wouldn't brazenly admit. I'm guessing he would deny or plead the Fifth.