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

[Picaro]

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.

Spanish, that other white European language.

But Obama needed to put some hispanic surnames on his list, so he can pretend to be 'spreading Diversity N Stuff', knowing most of the his idiot slaves will think she's Mexican or something.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

That depends on the suit. In this case, Trump is suing a chef for breach of contract. What both the plaintiff and the accused said to each other regarding this contract is part of the case. I fail to see the problem here. This isn't new law or unprecedented.

 

[Picaro]

...
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?

He is; he's holding him to his contract.

 

[OKTexas]

Once Trump is sworn in as President he can tell the judge to fuck off, lib FAIL

No he can't idiot moron. Republicans changed the law under Clinton.

A former AG and law professor says you know jack shit lib, stop embarrassing yourself.

You know Trump is suing Andres, Andres defense is that Trump said things in public which severely hamper the contract and thus the revenue or profit from the venture.

Yeah, that's obvious because no one is booking rooms in the hotel...................oh wait, that's not the case is it.

 

[Picaro]

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.

That depends on the suit. In this case, Trump is suing a chef for breach of contract. What both the plaintiff and the accused said to each other regarding this contract is part of the case. I fail to see the problem here. This isn't new law or unprecedented.

Ah, well I missed the video where Trump was talking to the Chef when he said that ... Maybe you can post this for us?

 

[Divine Wind]

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

An impossible standard. OTOH, Trump has to prove why the Chef is in breach of contract and why it's worth $10M. FWIW, I think the chef is in the wrong here, but I don't know how his contract reads nor of any verbal (and verifiable) agreements between the two. That's what a deposition is for.

 

[Divine Wind]

He is; he's holding him to his contract.

Agreed. That's what the lawsuit is about.

Ah, well I missed the video where Trump was talking to the Chef when he said that ... Maybe you can post this for us?

I know of no video. Do you have a copy of the contract to post for us?

He is; he's holding him to his contract.

 

[12icer]

Trump just told the truth about the situation WE THE PEOPLE are in because of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The lying liberals took a part of what he said, and left out the rest of what he said to use as basis for an attack on his character. That is what the chef gave as a basis for his breach of contract, making HIM the problem, not TRUMP. The judge is using the same basis for her order, making HER the problem, not TRUMP. I am sure every liberal piece of shit press person, and all of the paid to cause TRUMP shit people will be there trying to get one word to use against him as he says "FUCK YOU" on the stand. As I have posted, liberals are showing how vile they are by harassing, intimidating, extorting, and violating the rights of hundreds of thousands, and MILLIONS of people because they are allowed to. Hopefully they will be made to leave the rest of us ALONE and let us enjoy OUR rights soon. If not they CAN be made to by any means needed. There is no need to come to the courtroom for a deposition, IT can be take by any appointed officer of the court.

 

[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"?

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.

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.

Trump did not run on a platform disparaging Spanish people. He ran on a platform dealing realistically with the issue of illegal immigration.

Your Race Card use is noted and dismissed.


Your lack of understanding of the real estate market is noted.

YOur attempts are stigmatizing Saudis and Russians is noted and irrelevant.

 

[Divine Wind]

Trump did not run on a platform disparaging Spanish people. He ran on a platform dealing realistically with the issue of illegal immigration.

Your Race Card use is noted and dismissed.


Your lack of understanding of the real estate market is noted.

YOur attempts are stigmatizing Saudis and Russians is noted and irrelevant.

Not sure why you are quoting me in this post.

1) Debatable, but irrelevant to the lawsuit. The main questions are whether or not the Chef is in breach of contract, whether or not there are verbal agreements between the two and if in breach of contract, is it worth $10M.

2) I haven't used the race card.

3) I haven't mentioned real estate.

4) Fuck the Saudis and the Russians, but I fail to see how that applies to this case.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

If I were Andres, I wouldn't work for that fucker, either, after he made that rapist drug dealer speech. Probably 3/4 of the great food produced in restaurants in this country is made by guys speaking Spanish. You know that, right?

Trump was right to speak out against illegals, who are committing a shit load of crime in this nation.

Andres is an asshole for having a problem with it.

And he broke a contract and deserves to be punished for that.


And the vast majority of restaurant workers in this nation SPEAK ENGLISH.

Actually, statistically, illegals commit less crime than those of us who are here legally. More importantly, what Trump said in his kick-off speech was extremely offensive as well as being misleading. The reason is that no one is going to walk up to an Hispanic individual and ask if he is a citizen before forming an opinion of him. See an Hispanic, hear a guy speaking Spanish, and recall Trump's words.....
Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
Andres knew it wasn't going to be a picnic breaking this contract, but I don't blame him for refusing to work for Trump, even if it costs him.

For your info an illegal commits a new crime every day they remain in the country and another every day they go to work, so no they don't commit fewer crimes than the rest of us. Also he contracted to lease a restaurant space and operate the restaurant in that space. He would not be a direct employee of anyone but himself.

 

[Correll]

Trump did not run on a platform disparaging Spanish people. He ran on a platform dealing realistically with the issue of illegal immigration.

Your Race Card use is noted and dismissed.


Your lack of understanding of the real estate market is noted.

YOur attempts are stigmatizing Saudis and Russians is noted and irrelevant.

Not sure why you are quoting me in this post.

1) Debatable, but irrelevant to the lawsuit. The main questions are whether or not the Chef is in breach of contract, whether or not there are verbal agreements between the two and if in breach of contract, is it worth $10M.

2) I haven't used the race card.

3) I haven't mentioned real estate.

4) Fuck the Saudis and the Russians, but I fail to see how that applies to this case.

That reply was to Dragon lady. Your post was there by accident. Sorry.

All those points were in response to her delusional post.

 

[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"?

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.

in Star Wars, a distracted chief magistrate enabled the bureaucrats to get more bureaucratic.

if Only, we could rely on fixed Standards for our Republic.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

That depends on the suit. In this case, Trump is suing a chef for breach of contract. What both the plaintiff and the accused said to each other regarding this contract is part of the case. I fail to see the problem here. This isn't new law or unprecedented.

This has nothing to do with what the parties said to each other. It's what Trump said in a campaign speech.

 

[danielpalos]

why one should not mix public profit with private profit.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Someone is going to have to read his deposition statement to him.....Drumplethinskin can't read.

 

[OKTexas]

...
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?

Didn't you just post a link saying Trump has already been deposed in this case? Also you might want to read the 6th Amendment again, it applies to criminal cases, not civil.

 

[Divine Wind]

This has nothing to do with what the parties said to each other. It's what Trump said in a campaign speech.

Like the Civil War was about slavery? Sorry, M'am, but bullshit. Like slavery in the Civil War, politics is only tangential to the actual case.

While the Chef's quitting was certainly political, the bottom line here is 1) is he in breach of contract and 2) If so, is his breach worth $10,000,000?

 

[danielpalos]

This has nothing to do with what the parties said to each other. It's what Trump said in a campaign speech.

Like the Civil War was about slavery? Sorry, M'am, but bullshit. Like slavery in the Civil War, politics is only tangential to the actual case.

While the Chef's quitting was certainly political, the bottom line here is 1) is he in breach of contract and 2) If so, is his breach worth $10,000,000?

when business is politics, how do you distinguish? it is like conflict in the Middle East, it causes price inflation for fuel due to uncertainty in those markets.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

It's a her. Di Toro is the first married LGBT individual with children who has been approved by the Senate to serve the judiciary.[3]

Jennifer Di Toro - Ballotpedia

So fucking what? Totally fucking irrelevant.