Latest Breaking News

Jose Garcia

(3,490 posts) Fri Jan 21, 2022, 11:07 PM Jan 2022

DOJ seeks to block subpoena for Trump deposition [View all]

Source: CNN

(CNN)The Justice Department is seeking to block, for now, a subpoena to depose former President Donald Trump in a lawsuit brought by former FBI agent Peter Strzok.

The department argues in a court filling Friday that Strzok has not shown that Trump "possesses directly relevant information that cannot be obtained from other sources."

In summer 2017, former special counsel Robert Mueller removed Strzok from his team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election after an internal investigation first revealed texts with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok had an extramarital relationship, that could be read as exhibiting political bias. The FBI fired Strzok in 2018.

Trump had publicly called for Strzok's firing, and the Justice Department said in its court filing that its stance could change if Strzok can prove that the former President's communications had an effect on the decision to fire him.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/department-of-justice-trump-subpoena-deposition/index.html

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ seeks to block subpoena for Trump deposition [View all] Jose Garcia Jan 2022 OP

Seems like an instance of DOJ protecting the office of the President here. LonePirate Jan 2022 #1

I'm sick of DOJ protecting Trump. dem4decades Jan 2022 #3

I'm beyond sick over it. BigmanPigman Jan 2022 #21

Nahhhh...I think that.... FarPoint Jan 2022 #31

If they were to protect the office of the President, they would get out of the way Anti-Racist Hero Jan 2022 #63

WTF?! Bayard Jan 2022 #2

No shit!!!!! FoxNewsSucks Jan 2022 #5

EXACTLY❗❗ Duppers Jan 2022 #23

They're not defending Trump, they're defending the office. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #37

Never! Never! Anti-Racist Hero Jan 2022 #64

Now you sound like THEM; "he didn't really win the election!" oldsoftie Jan 2022 #73

Even when it happened under a prior administration, the DOJ won't fail to attempt to cover up RockRaven Jan 2022 #4

Jeezus H. Christ, there are so many damn fools on DU Trumpdumper Jan 2022 #7

So when DOJ protected the office of the presidency gab13by13 Jan 2022 #8

That case was mystifying to be honest dsc Jan 2022 #13

Why? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #15

because the government is the one who should be paying here dsc Jan 2022 #17

Firing civil sevants over politics is NOT part of his official duties. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #19

Thanks. The legal process ('DUE process') is difficult elleng Jan 2022 #9

Nice word, vituperation. Calista241 Jan 2022 #12

I have to agree. Subtle but principled DoJ work flies over their heads. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #33

What "principle" is DOJ upholding? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #35

It's not part of the duties of President. That is not the point of the filing. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #54

What is the "principle" you are referring to? What is "the point" of the filing? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #66

Who protects us? orangecrush Jan 2022 #56

Perhaps. But have you considered this is not a time of subtleties? msfiddlestix Jan 2022 #59

This is nuts. What "other sources" are better than Trump himself on Trump's thinking? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #6

The law is hard, three years of law school so I've heard. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #11

How does this protect the "Office of the Presidency"? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #16

Read the DOJ legal filing, the answers are there written by constitutional experts. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #18

The DOJ filing is written by line DOJ attorneys, not "constitutional experts." SunSeeker Jan 2022 #20

More expert than you or me, I would wager...and they got lots of lawyers, all kinds. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #48

DOJ has lots of lawyers, but they can still be wrong. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #69

I do give Biden's DOJ the benefit of the doubt. That's a fundamental disagreement. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #78

Comey pulled the 10/28/2016 letter disaster under Obama. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #81

Have you a link for the legal filing? It's not used in the quoted article muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #50

Hard to find, cursory search all show rw nut job posts...lol Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #52

That doesn't say anything about "protecting the office of the presidency" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #53

Ok, so u find it and report if m incorrect, np. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #55

Is that a quote from the DOJ lawyers? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #58

Tbh thought your first comment was inquisitorial, not the usual hostility on social mdia. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #76

I think your reply #55 was your mistake - you introduced the hostility then muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #79

I think the bottom line is they had reason to fire OTHER than Trumps opinion. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #38

That is in dispute in the litigation. This discovery is designed to determine why he was fired. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #42

Because the DOJ says that proof can be found elsewhere. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #45

Yes. Fundamental legal procedure 101..if discovery motioned for is findable elsewhere, go there. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #46

That is NOT fundamental "legal procedure" regarding civil discovery. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #67

No argument on that. Other source readily identifiable is whole DOJ position. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #77

Just because they say it does not mean it is correct. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #70

If you take the word "Trump" out of this case, you understand what they're doing. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #72

I think what they're doing is covering their asses with BS muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #80

You can't take Trump out of the case. Trump's abusive actions ARE the case. nt SunSeeker Jan 2022 #82

No, a case is based on facts not particular persons. You can take his name out. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #83

Fine, the case is about a President abusing his office to get an FBI agent fired. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #84

I'd like to see Trump catapulted into a volcano, but this move seems pretty standard to me Orrex Jan 2022 #10

There's nothing "standard" about what happened here. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #28

That's all true, but the DoJ's move still seems pretty standard here Orrex Jan 2022 #51

This was not testimony involving presidential duties. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #68

Well, then I'd say that DoJ's response would default to its general view re: presidential testimony Orrex Jan 2022 #71

Garland is trying to play everything by the book, but the book doesn't apply to Trump. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #85

Well, the arc of your postings here is pretty clear Orrex Jan 2022 #86

DoJ is the defendant, and they don't want some frikkin bozo witnesss destroying their defense? L. Coyote Jan 2022 #14

What mis-guided bullshit. We don't need the republicans to sabotage us, we have the DOJ JohnSJ Jan 2022 #22

Unfortunately that is standard reaction on everything not understood and dispatched by Twitter. Alexander Of Assyria Jan 2022 #47

Trump isn't the one being sued here. onenote Jan 2022 #24

Who can be deposed is not determined by who the named parties are. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #25

+++ JohnSJ Jan 2022 #26

I know that. onenote Jan 2022 #43

Not to terribly concerned if the court agrees with the DOJ for now as cstanleytech Jan 2022 #27

Strzok might be able to show no other source exists, but why must Strzok clear that hurdle? SunSeeker Jan 2022 #29

"Strzok might be able to show no other source exists" then he would have to give a deposition. cstanleytech Jan 2022 #34

Because the burden of proof is always on the accuser. oldsoftie Jan 2022 #39

We're talking about discovery, not burden of proof at trial. SunSeeker Jan 2022 #41

Why isn't this thread at the top of the page?? Duppers Jan 2022 #30

If anybody successfully gets Trump to testify he'll Sparky 1 Jan 2022 #32

The bottom line is, gab13by13 Jan 2022 #36

LOLOLOL oldsoftie Jan 2022 #40

Yep orangecrush Jan 2022 #60

I think this is a good development bucolic_frolic Jan 2022 #44

Trump has half a dozen private citizen law suits right now. gab13by13 Jan 2022 #49

Who protects us? orangecrush Jan 2022 #57

Who the hell's side is the DOJ on? hamsterjill Jan 2022 #61

We all are. orangecrush Jan 2022 #62

You excited? NFM UnderThisLaw Jan 2022 #65

Weird. msfiddlestix Jan 2022 #74

My patience for justice is wearing thin. In the meantime TFG is playing golf Emile Jan 2022 #75