DOJ seeks to block subpoena for Trump deposition

[Jose Garcia]

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

[LonePirate]

1. Seems like an instance of DOJ protecting the office of the President here.

That story will only add fuel to the fire of those who think DOJ is not pursuing crimes related to the January 6 insurrection.

[dem4decades]

3. I'm sick of DOJ protecting Trump.

[BigmanPigman]

21. I'm beyond sick over it.

[FarPoint]

31. Nahhhh...I think that....

This is a " high stakes poker game" and the DOJ is leading.

[Anti-Racist Hero]

63. If they were to protect the office of the President, they would get out of the way

If they were really trying to protect the office of the president, they would do all they could to eliminate those that usurp the office for treasonous methods.

[Bayard]

2. WTF?!

Why is our Justice Dept still defending this monster, but won't prosecute him for his many crimes?

[FoxNewsSucks]

5. No shit!!!!!

We saw the crimes, heard the recordings. Arrest him for the obvious NOW. Then add additional charges as they become "airtight".

FUCK!!!!! Why are tRump and his spawn and his cabal still walking free spewing lies on podcasts EVERY DAY?????

[Duppers]

23. EXACTLY❗❗

[oldsoftie]

37. They're not defending Trump, they're defending the office.

There are cases where we HAVE to be able to separate the two. That seems to be the case here; but I'm not a lawyer either

[Anti-Racist Hero]

64. Never! Never!

Trump was never a legitimate "president" in the first place so there is no office to protect!

[oldsoftie]

73. Now you sound like THEM; "he didn't really win the election!"

Yes, he did. And so did Biden. And what good does it do to scream that from the rooftops? He was there 4 yrs and now he's GONE. He IS a former President whether we like it or not.

[RockRaven]

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

DOJ malfeasance.

[Trumpdumper]

7. Jeezus H. Christ, there are so many damn fools on DU

This is a matter of protecting the office of the presidency. That's precisely the sort of client we want the DOJ to defend. The subtleties are lost on so many here buried in the thralls of vituperation.

[gab13by13]

8. So when DOJ protected the office of the presidency

in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit, I have a question. Is defaming someone who accuses you of rape an official duty of the president?

[dsc]

13. That case was mystifying to be honest

but here, I think the DOJ is right to litigate.

[SunSeeker]

15. Why?

How is Trump abusing his power to get civil servants fired for disagreeing with him politically part of the protected duties of the President?

[dsc]

17. because the government is the one who should be paying here

it was part of his official duties. It is actually not terribly relevant that Trump wanted him gone vs say Pence wanting him gone. What is relevant is did the officials who actually fired him have cause to or not. He likely doesn't need Trump's testimony either way for that to be determined, and if he does, the DOJ said it would reverse position.

[SunSeeker]

19. Firing civil sevants over politics is NOT part of his official duties.

This FBI agent was NOT a political appointee. He had civil service protections.

He is trying to establish that he was fired because Trump ordered him fired. Who is better than Trump to establish that Trump made that order?

[elleng]

9. Thanks. The legal process ('DUE process') is difficult

for MANY.

[Calista241]

12. Nice word, vituperation.

Had to look it up, which doesn't happen that often. Congrats!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. I have to agree. Subtle but principled DoJ work flies over their heads. . . . nt

[SunSeeker]

35. What "principle" is DOJ upholding?

How is Trump abusing his power to get civil servants fired for disagreeing with him politically part of the protected duties of the President?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. It's not part of the duties of President. That is not the point of the filing. . . . nt

[SunSeeker]

66. What is the "principle" you are referring to? What is "the point" of the filing?

[orangecrush]

56. Who protects us?

[msfiddlestix]

59. Perhaps. But have you considered this is not a time of subtleties?

Subtleties of time honored process no longer has standing, credibility, or as a practical matter, legitimacy.

All of those lovely nuanced elements of long practiced judicial finessing has been blown to pieces reduced to smoldering rubble.

Who are these fools that recognize a pile of manure when they smell it?

[SunSeeker]

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

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. The law is hard, three years of law school so I've heard.

This is to protect the Office of the Presidency, which belongs to no one, it is rented from us.

[SunSeeker]

16. How does this protect the "Office of the Presidency"?

How is Trump abusing his power to get civil servants fired for disagreeing with him politically part of the protected duties of the President?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

18. Read the DOJ legal filing, the answers are there written by constitutional experts.

[SunSeeker]

20. The DOJ filing is written by line DOJ attorneys, not "constitutional experts."

And they are advocating a position, not opining on the law.

Since you can't answer my question, I suggest you dial down the arrogance.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

48. More expert than you or me, I would wager...and they got lots of lawyers, all kinds.

[SunSeeker]

69. DOJ has lots of lawyers, but they can still be wrong.

And certainly have been in the past.

You obviously have not read the DOJ motion. We are all going by what has been reported about what's in the motion. I have not been able to locate a copy of the motion (and apparently neither have you), but from what I have read about the motion on CNN, it seems wrong, and unfair to Strzok.

After the Mueller Report came up short and made some really bad judgment calls, and after the sabotage of the October 28, 2016 Comey letter, I no longer give DOJ the benefit of the doubt.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[Alexander Of Assyria]

78. I do give Biden's DOJ the benefit of the doubt. That's a fundamental disagreement.

[SunSeeker]

81. Comey pulled the 10/28/2016 letter disaster under Obama.

Unlike Republicans, Democratic Presidents don't attempt to influence DOJ. I don't think Biden had anything to do with that motion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Have you a link for the legal filing? It's not used in the quoted article

and that seems to be the only new story about this. I'm looking for the "office of the president" reasoning that people here say is invoked, but that hasn't helped yet.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

52. Hard to find, cursory search all show rw nut job posts...lol

there is this…

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.

The department said in the filing that it wasn't endorsing Trump's conduct.

"Neither the disposition of this motion nor the disposition of this case requires the Court to opine on the appropriateness of the former President's conduct," the department said.
"In similar fashion, this memorandum should not be construed as a defense of that conduct."

That seems clear enough, right from legal beagles mouth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. That doesn't say anything about "protecting the office of the presidency"

and that is what you claimed. You also implied you'd read the filing, because you assured us it was written by "constitutional experts". Now you appear to be just assuming that the government's lawyers are the best in the world, and would never file something that could be argued against.

As others have said, the quoted position in the CNN article is "you've got to prove Trump improperly influenced our decision, and you're not allowed to ask him about it, because you haven't proved there are no other sources". They don't seem to have done anything useful for the case (or the country) such as point out what they think the "other sources" might be. That's not protecting the office of the presidency, that's protecting their own asses.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

55. Ok, so u find it and report if m incorrect, np.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Is that a quote from the DOJ lawyers?

It has the same "let's just assume I'm right, and you have to find out the secret sources I think justify that" attitude they exhibit.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

76. Tbh thought your first comment was inquisitorial, not the usual hostility on social mdia.

My mistake, really.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. I think your reply #55 was your mistake - you introduced the hostility then

I tried to get the information from you, but it became clear you didn't know, and had just been assuming the government lawyers were in the right, on the grounds that they are government lawyers. I still can't see where anyone has conjured this "defending the office of the presidency" from.

[oldsoftie]

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

if so, trumps opinion is immaterial & doesn't matter in THIS case
But if the ONLY reason he was fired was because Trump wanted him fired, it would be a different story

[SunSeeker]

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

Why should he be denied the right to depose a relevant witness to what is at issue in the case?

[oldsoftie]

45. Because the DOJ says that proof can be found elsewhere.

So they must already know the answer

[Alexander Of Assyria]

46. Yes. Fundamental legal procedure 101..if discovery motioned for is findable elsewhere, go there.

[SunSeeker]

67. That is NOT fundamental "legal procedure" regarding civil discovery.

A party is entitled to pursue discovery that is reasonably designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A party is not required to "go elsewhere" unless that other source is readily identifiable and the source from whom it was originally sought can establish some sort of legitimate hardship in responding.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

77. No argument on that. Other source readily identifiable is whole DOJ position.

[SunSeeker]

70. Just because they say it does not mean it is correct.

DOJ has certainly been wrong before.

Exhibit 1: Comey's ridiculous October 28, 2016 letter that handed the election to Trump. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[oldsoftie]

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

I'm not going to obsess over that fool at the risk of harming what lawyers say is standard legal procedure.
The Comet letter has nothing to do with this case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I think what they're doing is covering their asses with BS

The DOJ is accused of succumbing to political pressure and firing Strzok unfairly. They're saying "OK, prove that, but without talking to the politician you say put pressure on us". It may be "standard legal procedure", but so is saying "no comment" in a police interview. It's not designed to get at the truth, it's designed to let them off the hook. It is not aimed at "Justice". Shamefully, for the Department of Justice.

[SunSeeker]

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

[oldsoftie]

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

If the legal people here say this is SOP, I have no reason to doubt them. I doubt the DOJ is up to no good simply because its trump involved. If trump wanting the guy fired is exhibit A, but there exists exhibit B, C & D; then they do not need trump.
And he would be useless to the case anyway; answering "I don't recall" 100 times or taking the 5th (that he used to criticize)

[SunSeeker]

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

There is nothing standard about that. And I'm not sure what you mean by "the legal people here say this is SOP." Everyone on this board is an anonymous poster. So let's just base our discussions on the facts and the law, shall we?

The Assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) involved in this case have never had a civil service plaintiff make allegations like Strzok's before. ​Usually, people fired allege a more amorphous discriminatory animus by their supervisors, not that the fucking President pressured their boss to fire them. In those cases involving the more amorphous allegations, it is indeed standard for the AUSAs to argue that Department heads and the US President should not be deposed since the plaintiff can readily depose their own immediate supervisor who fired them, the only one who a plaintiff usually as any facts to support allegations of having improper motivations. Unless the plaintiff has some facts to suggest a Department head or the US President played any part in the decision, the plaintiff is normally blocked from deposing them or others further up the ladder.

But in this case, the fucking President PUBLICLY proclaimed a specific FBI agent should be fired, as alleged in Strzok's complaint. https://www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzok-sues-attorney-general-and-fbi-director No President has ever done that before, so SOP goes out the window. Strzok has already factually established the right to depose Trump. Nobody disputes that Trump made those public declarations; there's tape and video of it. And if he said that publicly, it is reasonable to infer he made even more abusive demands privately to "my" FBI Director and AG, as Trump called them.

And yes, of course Trump will lie. But that could still be probative and helpful testimony for the plaintiff. Catching him in a lie implies a coverup of the behavior Trump is denying, and can be just as useful in proving the behavior. For example, if Trump denies he met with the firing official, and it turns out there's video of the two meeting, then it can be inferred by a jury that what was said at that meeting was something Trump and DOJ seek to hide, i.e. it goes to prove Strzok's allegation that Trump pressured his DOJ appointees to fire Strzok.

I don't think the AUSAs bringing this motion are bad people, they just are trying too hard to act like they are playing everything by the book, as the FBI director and AG are fond of saying. But they fail to realize that the SOP book does not apply to overtly criminal Presidents like Donald Trump.

[Orrex]

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

[SunSeeker]

28. There's nothing "standard" about what happened here.

Trump had publicly called for Strzok’s firing. It is likely he pressured DOJ privately as well. Strzok is a civil service employee, not a political appointee. A President isn't supposed to interfere with DOJ and get DOJ employees fired because of their politics. That's why Strzok sued. Trump's depo testimony would be directly relevant to the central allegation of Strzok's complaint.

Per CNN, DOJ 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." But what Trump said and did goes to proving whether Trump's pressure had an effect. If Trump says he sat down with the DOJ official who fired Strzok and told them to fire him and that official told Trump ok, that would pretty much prove the allegations of Strzok's complaint. That's why it's important for Strzok to depose Trump to determine what Trump said to who, and what they said back to Trump. Sure Trump will lie, but catching him in a lie implies a coverup of the behavior Trump is denying, and can be just as useful in proving the behavior. For example, if Trump denies he met with the firing offical, and it turns out there's video of the two meeting, then it can be inferred by a jury that what was said at that meeting was something Trump and DOJ seek to hide, i.e. it goes to prove Strzok's allegations.

DOJ is basically trying to put Strzok in a Catch-22: you can't have this evidence unless you can prove what this evidence proves. That is utterly unfair and a violation of Strzok discovery rights in civil litigation.

[Orrex]

51. That's all true, but the DoJ's move still seems pretty standard here

Maybe I'm wrong: does the DoJ have a long history of being proactively forthcoming with information and with access to presidential testimony?

[SunSeeker]

68. This was not testimony involving presidential duties.

The testimony sought is regarding actions outside the scope of legitimate presidential duties. And my guess is DOJ doesn't have a long history of dealing with that. We have never, in my lifetime, had a President as lawless as Trump.

[Orrex]

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

Regardless of whether such testimony involves his duties. As you note, we've had no president as lawless as The Fuckhead Guy.

Honestly, and in spite of the assurances of the DoJ faithful among us, Garland appears to be dragging his feet as much as possible, and anything that creates the impression that he's giving Trump cover will undermine faith in the end result.

But this particular move doesn't surprise me.


YMMV

[SunSeeker]

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

As I explain in Post #84, SOP(Standard Operating Procedures) or "defaults" do not apply to overtly criminal Presidents.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142857012#post84

DOJ's motion is wrong. Whether or not the motion "surprises" you is not particularly relevant to the issue at hand.

[Orrex]

86. Well, the arc of your postings here is pretty clear

Therefore I decline to engage with you further

[L. Coyote]

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

Man, given who the bozo is I'd be worried too.

[JohnSJ]

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

[Alexander Of Assyria]

47. Unfortunately that is standard reaction on everything not understood and dispatched by Twitter.

[onenote]

24. Trump isn't the one being sued here.

[SunSeeker]

25. Who can be deposed is not determined by who the named parties are.

Trump's deposition is warranted because Trump's actions are relevant to the central allegation of Strzok's complaint: Trump pressured DOJ to fire him in violation of due process, the Constitution and civil service rules. Strzok claims his termination in August 2018 came because of political pressure on the FBI from President Donald Trump after he criticized Trump and made political comments in private text messages in 2016.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/politics/peter-strzok-sues-back-pay-job-trump/index.html


The original Complaint by Strzok is here:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzok-sues-attorney-general-and-fbi-director

[JohnSJ]

26. +++

[onenote]

43. I know that.

My comment was merely to point out something that some of the posters may not have understood about the case.

[cstanleytech]

27. Not to terribly concerned if the court agrees with the DOJ for now as

all the attorneys for Strzok have to show is that no other source exists and that a deposition from Trump is still needed.

[SunSeeker]

29. Strzok might be able to show no other source exists, but why must Strzok clear that hurdle?

Trump is no longer a sitting President. Why can't he get deposed if his testimony is relevant, like any other witness?

[cstanleytech]

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

"why must Strzok clear that hurdle?" Because according to the DOJ there are other ways the information can be obtained.
Mind you I am not saying that I agree or disagree with their argument before the court rather I am simply saying that at this moment in time that I am not to concerned.

[oldsoftie]

39. Because the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

[SunSeeker]

41. We're talking about discovery, not burden of proof at trial.

All a party usually needs to establish grounds for a
a particular item of discovery is whether it is reasonably designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

[Duppers]

30. Why isn't this thread at the top of the page??

Even though it's been posted late on a Friday night; this info is most disturbing.

[Sparky 1]

32. If anybody successfully gets Trump to testify he'll

If anybody successfully gets Trump to testify on anything he'll just plead the 5th or say "I do not recall" a million times. He'll never come clean on anything. I think the same applies to Bannon and the other inside guys that have refused to testify to Congress. Honest men don't act like that.

[gab13by13]

36. The bottom line is,

Merrick Garland did not have to take this case, he had plenty of reasons not to, but it appears to me that Garland goes over and beyond to appear non-partisan.

If someone sued Trump for something he did on the golf course then I would agree that DOJ should defend the office seeing as golfing was an official duty of Trump's presidency.

[oldsoftie]

40. LOLOLOL

[orangecrush]

60. Yep

[bucolic_frolic]

44. I think this is a good development

You never know what TFG will do or say. Don't need a private citizen's lawsuit just now. Nail down the insurrection and then deal with this.

[gab13by13]

49. Trump has half a dozen private citizen law suits right now.

Last edited Sat Jan 22, 2022, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Michael Cohen, several Capitol police officers, Mary Trump, I know there are more. DOJ better hire more lawyers to defend Trump's presidency, funny how I don't remember many other presidential offices needing defended so much.

[orangecrush]

57. Who protects us?

Certainly not this supreme court stacked full of nutjobs.
.
Or two certain senators who kill legislation DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Donald Trump doesn't need defended.

[hamsterjill]

61. Who the hell's side is the DOJ on?

Why are they protecting a known traitor? The deposition could be sealed, couldn’t it? Thereby protecting anything classified.

I’m tired of Trump getting away with treason.

[orangecrush]

62. We all are.

[UnderThisLaw]

65. You excited? NFM

[msfiddlestix]

74. Weird.

This quote is really quite puzzling:

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."

That argument seems to be a bit weird to put it as politely as I am able to muster at the moment.

Unless it's a misquote, DOJ seems to be suggesting unless there's a written memo/directive explicitly citing this action based on the obvious rational, then it isn't a legally valid claim.

Statements out of his own mouth ought to suffice legally.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding this entire point DOJ is making.

[Emile]

75. My patience for justice is wearing thin. In the meantime TFG is playing golf

and orchestrating Republicans to pass voter suppression laws all over the country.. Patience. . .yawn