MANY pundits in the US and elsewhere predicted that it would only be a matter of time before former president Donald Trump would be summoned to court after losing the immunity granted to him while he was custodian of the White House.
More than 30 lawsuits are outstanding against Trump and he is under investigation by numerous agencies including the tax authorities in New York and the election officials the state of Georgia. Now a day of judicial destiny has arrived for the one-time king of reality television.
It was the appeals court of his former home state of New York which late on Tuesday acted to haul the former president before the one element of justice he has always tried to avoid – testifying under oath.
The case concerns a group of human rights activists of Mexican origin who allege they were violently attacked by Trump’s security guards on September 3, 2015.
The lead plaintiff is Efrain Galicia, in the case of Galicia v Trump, heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Tuesday. In 2019 a state court judge in the Bronx in New York ordered Trump to answer questions under oath, but Trump argued on appeal that he could not be compelled to testify.
In its ruling the court states: “This appeal concerning the proper standard for determining whether a sitting president may be compelled to give videotaped trial testimony about unofficial acts in a civil action against him or her is moot given that the rights of parties will not be directly affected by our determination and that there will not be an immediate consequence of the judgment.”
In effect, by saying his appeal is “moot” because he is no longer president, the court is saying Trump must now give evidence on oath.
Court documents alleged: “Plaintiffs were attacked and their property destroyed for the express purpose of interfering with their political speech while they were lawfully and peacefully assembled on the public sidewalk in front of the headquarters of Donald J Trump for America Inc and the Trump Organization LLC.”
It is likely Trump will appeal the latest finding, for he is facing at least two lawsuits in which he is being asked to testify under oath.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel