CORNERED: Judge Orders Trump To Testify Under Oath Over Remarks About Immigrants

[Correll]

Donald Trump Must Give Testimony Under Oath In Restaurant Suit, Judge Rules

The president-elect had tried to get away with not testifying, even though he himself brought the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON ― A judge has ordered Republican President-elect Donald Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit against celebrity chef Jose Andres stemming from Trump’s disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro ruled on Wednesday that Trump must testify in New York about Andres’ restaurant deal at Trump’s luxury Washington hotel. The deposition can last up to seven hours and will take place in the first week of January.

His lawyers had sought to limit how long Trump could be questioned and what could be covered, contending he was extremely busy ahead of his Jan. 20 inauguration.

But Di Toro said in her order that limits on the deposition could harm preparations by Andres’ lawyers, and that Trump’s own statements were at the heart of the case.

Trump is suing Andres for $10 million over breach of contract after Andres backed out of a plan to open a restaurant in the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House.

Andres, who was born in Spain and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, has said he canceled the project after Trump denounced Mexican immigrants in June 2015 as drug dealers and rapists.

Andres has argued that the comments made it difficult to attract Hispanic staff and customers and to raise money for a Spanish restaurant.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

CORNERED: Judge Orders Trump To Testify Over Remarks About Immigrants

Trump under oath! Sounds good. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro.

Andres broke a contract and this judge is abusing his position.

Trump's statements are irrelevant. Fucking liberal judges.

How dare they ask Trump to answer anything. Time to attack the Judge. Who is it? IDK but they stink and doing a bad job - Big Time. Sad

Did you cry on election night?

 

[Correll]

Do you really think this order, or the questions would be about the contract, or would the goal be to smear and undermine the President they could not defeat at the ballot box?

Hint: The answer is the latter.

Don't be a sucker.

No doubt the chef will do what he can to avoid being sued. Still, Trump can end this by dropping the lawsuit. While politics are certainly at work here, the bottom line is that the chef would prefer not to pay off a $10M settlement. Confronting his accuser seems fair.

FWIW: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdfrdman/Civil.Confrontation.Hornbook.pdf
In the criminal setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is fundamental. Although the fully panoply of right do not apply in the civil setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses often still applies. Here, however, the due process clause, rather than the Sixth Amendment, protects the right. As we’ll see, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is much more flexible in the civil arena.....

....In non-criminal proceedings, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is part of procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.....

What did Trump "witness" that needs to be "examined"?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donald Trump Must Give Testimony Under Oath In Restaurant Suit, Judge Rules

The president-elect had tried to get away with not testifying, even though he himself brought the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON ― A judge has ordered Republican President-elect Donald Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit against celebrity chef Jose Andres stemming from Trump’s disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro ruled on Wednesday that Trump must testify in New York about Andres’ restaurant deal at Trump’s luxury Washington hotel. The deposition can last up to seven hours and will take place in the first week of January.

His lawyers had sought to limit how long Trump could be questioned and what could be covered, contending he was extremely busy ahead of his Jan. 20 inauguration.

But Di Toro said in her order that limits on the deposition could harm preparations by Andres’ lawyers, and that Trump’s own statements were at the heart of the case.

Trump is suing Andres for $10 million over breach of contract after Andres backed out of a plan to open a restaurant in the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House.

Andres, who was born in Spain and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, has said he canceled the project after Trump denounced Mexican immigrants in June 2015 as drug dealers and rapists.

Andres has argued that the comments made it difficult to attract Hispanic staff and customers and to raise money for a Spanish restaurant.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

CORNERED: Judge Orders Trump To Testify Over Remarks About Immigrants

Trump under oath! Sounds good. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro.

Andres broke a contract and this judge is abusing his position.

Trump's statements are irrelevant. Fucking liberal judges.

How dare they ask Trump to answer anything. Time to attack the Judge. Who is it? IDK but they stink and doing a bad job - Big Time. Sad

Did you cry on election night?

Are you crying now?

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump Must Give Testimony Under Oath In Restaurant Suit, Judge Rules

The president-elect had tried to get away with not testifying, even though he himself brought the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON ― A judge has ordered Republican President-elect Donald Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit against celebrity chef Jose Andres stemming from Trump’s disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro ruled on Wednesday that Trump must testify in New York about Andres’ restaurant deal at Trump’s luxury Washington hotel. The deposition can last up to seven hours and will take place in the first week of January.

His lawyers had sought to limit how long Trump could be questioned and what could be covered, contending he was extremely busy ahead of his Jan. 20 inauguration.

But Di Toro said in her order that limits on the deposition could harm preparations by Andres’ lawyers, and that Trump’s own statements were at the heart of the case.

Trump is suing Andres for $10 million over breach of contract after Andres backed out of a plan to open a restaurant in the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House.

Andres, who was born in Spain and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, has said he canceled the project after Trump denounced Mexican immigrants in June 2015 as drug dealers and rapists.

Andres has argued that the comments made it difficult to attract Hispanic staff and customers and to raise money for a Spanish restaurant.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

CORNERED: Judge Orders Trump To Testify Over Remarks About Immigrants

Trump under oath! Sounds good. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro.

Andres broke a contract and this judge is abusing his position.

Trump's statements are irrelevant. Fucking liberal judges.

How dare they ask Trump to answer anything. Time to attack the Judge. Who is it? IDK but they stink and doing a bad job - Big Time. Sad

Did you cry on election night?

Are you crying now?

NOpe. Feeling real good. Can't wait till his first Hundred Days.

I got a new hobby too. Re watching lefty snowflakes reporting on/responding to election night.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you really think this order, or the questions would be about the contract, or would the goal be to smear and undermine the President they could not defeat at the ballot box?

Hint: The answer is the latter.

Don't be a sucker.

No doubt the chef will do what he can to avoid being sued. Still, Trump can end this by dropping the lawsuit. While politics are certainly at work here, the bottom line is that the chef would prefer not to pay off a $10M settlement. Confronting his accuser seems fair.

FWIW: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdfrdman/Civil.Confrontation.Hornbook.pdf
In the criminal setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is fundamental. Although the fully panoply of right do not apply in the civil setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses often still applies. Here, however, the due process clause, rather than the Sixth Amendment, protects the right. As we’ll see, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is much more flexible in the civil arena.....

....In non-criminal proceedings, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is part of procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.....

What did Trump "witness" that needs to be "examined"?

His Story?

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you really think this order, or the questions would be about the contract, or would the goal be to smear and undermine the President they could not defeat at the ballot box?

Hint: The answer is the latter.

Don't be a sucker.

No doubt the chef will do what he can to avoid being sued. Still, Trump can end this by dropping the lawsuit. While politics are certainly at work here, the bottom line is that the chef would prefer not to pay off a $10M settlement. Confronting his accuser seems fair.

FWIW: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdfrdman/Civil.Confrontation.Hornbook.pdf
In the criminal setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is fundamental. Although the fully panoply of right do not apply in the civil setting, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses often still applies. Here, however, the due process clause, rather than the Sixth Amendment, protects the right. As we’ll see, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is much more flexible in the civil arena.....

....In non-criminal proceedings, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is part of procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.....

What did Trump "witness" that needs to be "examined"?

Scroll up. Obviously you missed the part where Trump is the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Trump has a right to seek justice in court. Those being sued have a right to face their accuser.

How 75 pending lawsuits could distract a Donald Trump presidency
On the first anniversary of the start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump spent much of the day in a setting he knows well — a room full of high-priced lawyers battling out a civil lawsuit.

Trump paused his campaigning June 16 to answer questions under oath in one of his lawsuits against two celebrity chefs. He had sued Geoffrey Zakarian and José Andrés after they backed out of a restaurant deal in response to Trump’s inflammatory statements about Mexican immigrants.

The two-hour deposition was at least the third time Trump had to leave the campaign trail to be deposed by attorneys in one of his organization’s many lawsuits.

Just two weeks before Election Day, at least 75 of the 4,000-plus lawsuits involving Trump and his businesses remain open, according to an ongoing, nationwide analysis of state and federal court records by USA TODAY.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donald Trump Must Give Testimony Under Oath In Restaurant Suit, Judge Rules

The president-elect had tried to get away with not testifying, even though he himself brought the lawsuit.

WASHINGTON ― A judge has ordered Republican President-elect Donald Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit against celebrity chef Jose Andres stemming from Trump’s disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro ruled on Wednesday that Trump must testify in New York about Andres’ restaurant deal at Trump’s luxury Washington hotel. The deposition can last up to seven hours and will take place in the first week of January.

His lawyers had sought to limit how long Trump could be questioned and what could be covered, contending he was extremely busy ahead of his Jan. 20 inauguration.

But Di Toro said in her order that limits on the deposition could harm preparations by Andres’ lawyers, and that Trump’s own statements were at the heart of the case.

Trump is suing Andres for $10 million over breach of contract after Andres backed out of a plan to open a restaurant in the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House.

Andres, who was born in Spain and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, has said he canceled the project after Trump denounced Mexican immigrants in June 2015 as drug dealers and rapists.

Andres has argued that the comments made it difficult to attract Hispanic staff and customers and to raise money for a Spanish restaurant.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

CORNERED: Judge Orders Trump To Testify Over Remarks About Immigrants

Trump under oath! Sounds good. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro.

Andres broke a contract and this judge is abusing his position.

Trump's statements are irrelevant. Fucking liberal judges.

How dare they ask Trump to answer anything. Time to attack the Judge. Who is it? IDK but they stink and doing a bad job - Big Time. Sad

Did you cry on election night?

Are you crying now?

NOpe. Feeling real good. Can't wait till his first Hundred Days.

I got a new hobby too. Re watching lefty snowflakes reporting on/responding to election night.

Great news! Glad you wanted to discuss emotions instead of the topic. Did you have breakfast?

 

[mudwhistle]

Andres broke a contract and this judge is abusing his position.

Trump's statements are irrelevant. Fucking liberal judges.

It's Trump's lawsuit. He could always drop the suit to avoid testifying.

Since when does any court demand that the plaintiff must testify or lose the case? That is a miscarriage of justice. The lawyers decide which testimony they will present in court, not some SOB with a bone to pick over immigration.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again your childish understand of the courts is astonishing. Expensive lawyers and deep pockets helps in out of court settlements, has nothing to do with it once the case enters the court house before a judge and jury.

And your willful ignorance is astonishing. You think expensive lawyers and deep pockets doesn't matter. Your arrogant attitude doesn't cover up for your lack of intelligence, but you keep trying.

Yeah, tell that to OJ, I think you can find him in a NV prison.

OJ wasn't rich then, he lost a civil case to the Goldman family that cost him almost everything he had, including his Heisman trophy. Again, your ignorance is showing.

Oh so he was a rich man with deep pockets and fancy high powered lawyers and lost in court? I thought you said regular folks couldn't prevail over someone like that. You might want to tell the Goldmans not to waste their time. LMAO

The Goldmans won because OJ was already tried in court once in the criminal trial, and it didn't take much for them to win their case. Damn... you try sooooo fucking hard to come across as intelligent, and fail every time. About the only thing I can say about you is you're persistent.

Do you even know why OJ got put in jail in NV? Hell you still thought he was rich.

You're like my ex-wife, got a excuse for everything and yeah I do know why he's locked up.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem with liberals is they all feel that they can make up new rules any time they want. If they aren't able to win inside the rules they just try to change them by bullying people.

 

[Divine Wind]

...Can't wait till his first Hundred Days.

I got a new hobby too. Re watching lefty snowflakes reporting on/responding to election night.

Agreed. I was dreading a Hillary Presidency and four years of the same bullshit.

 

[Divine Wind]

Since when does any court demand that the plaintiff must testify or lose the case? That is a miscarriage of justice. The lawyers decide which testimony they will present in court, not some SOB with a bone to pick over immigration.

Scroll. It's not unusual for the accused to face their accuser and Trump has both been deposed and given trial testimony in a lot of his 4000 lawsuits. Just because he's been elected President doesn't change the law.

 

[percysunshine]

.
pfft...bug fart alert.

Trumps first term will be over before appeals courts are finished with this. This is an exercise in keeping lawyers off the unemployment roles.

 

[mudwhistle]

Since when does any court demand that the plaintiff must testify or lose the case? That is a miscarriage of justice. The lawyers decide which testimony they will present in court, not some SOB with a bone to pick over immigration.

Scroll. It's not unusual for the accused to face their accuser and Trump has both been deposed and given trial testimony in a lot of his 4000 lawsuits. Just because he's been elected President doesn't change the law.

That's not what I'm arguing.
Sorry if my point went over your head. I suggest you go back and read the title of this thread.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Show definitive proof that there has never been a drug dealer or rapist that came to this country as a Mexican immigrant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe Putin will have the Mexican restaurant?

 

[12icer]

His Story?

Why? There is a Document called a contract, Trump or one of his staff most likely asked the chef if he would like to open a restaurant, the chef agreed their lawyers made a contract, the chef and Trump or one of his staff most likely signed it. That means there is no reason for Trump to be in the court proceeding at all because BREACH of contract without a prior agreement for release from the contract is in fact prima fascia evidence of the same. All the lawyers and accountants have to do is show a loss of any amount of revenue because of the breach, and the lawsuit is proved. The only reason to bring Tump in is to harass, and defame him with insults about a statement he ALLEGEDLY made, The statement that has been misquoted by every liberal shit pile that repeated it. So in fact MAYBE if he does come in HE will force the press, and the shit scum liberal liars to AIR it 100 times a day in it's entirety, instead of in it's half assed release by the lying worthless press.

 

[Dragonlady]

What did Trump "witness" that needs to be "examined"?

Trump is a party to the contract under which he is suing the chef. When two parties enter into a contract, it is a requirement of both parties to work diligently and to the "best of their abilities" in order for the enterprise to succeed. Specificially, Donald Trump contracted with the chef for a Spanish themed restaurant. Trump then ran for President on a platform disparaging Spanish people. That's not working to the best of his abilities to make this venture a success.

Trump can try to spin this any way he wants, but his racist remarks were offensive to all immigrants in general, and to Spanish speaking immigrants in particular.

Trump then sues his business partner in this venture for pulling out, when in fact it was Trump who was ensuring that the venture had zero chance of success.

Other than foreign dignitaries lining up to stay at the Trump Hotel in Washington, Trumps properties around the world continue to end up in bankruptcy courts. Trump Hotel in Toronto is the latest Trump resort to end up filing a bankruptcy petition. The same Trump Hotel that was built with Saudi money, and which Trump operates on behalf of its RUSSIAN owner.

But continue to say that there's nothing in Trump's business relationships that are anything but glowing and successful.

 

[Picaro]

Andres broke a contract. Does Trump not deserve protection under the law, without fear of being abused by judges with a political agenda?

It appears so. Yes Trump deserves protection under the law. Same for the Chef, including facing his accuser. I fail to see the issue here.

Few business suits require anybody there but the lawyers for the respective sides; this is just grandstanding bullshit from a hack political appointee sitting on a bench. Andre is just an ass trying to make a name for himself that's all, and so is the Judge, just returning political favors for her Party. Nothing Trump said slandered anybody but criminals, and has zero bearing on the case, it's just a media circus.

 

[Divine Wind]

...
Sorry if my point went over your head. I suggest you go back and read the title of this thread.

Read it. So what? That doesn't change the fact Trump has been deposed and testified in many of his 4000 lawsuits. He has 75 to go. Being President-elect doesn't change an accused person's right to face their accuser.

Why doesn't Trump just drop the suit and tell the Chef to go fuck himself?