Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:16 PM
davidmich davidmich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,988
What happens is a sitting president refuses to obey a summons to appear in court?

Hi

What happens is a sitting president refuses to obey a summons to appear in court? Does he have the right to refuse?

I look forward to your feedback.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/trumps...nied-by-judge/

A Manhattan appeals panel has rejected President Trump’s request to stay a defamation claim filed by a former “Apprentice” contestant while he’s in office.

“The motion is denied,” five justices from the state’s mid-level Appellate Division wrote in a one-page decision released Thursday. The ruling means the case can move forward.
  #2  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:34 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,186
That was not a ruling on a summons. It was a ruling on whether the lawsuit may go forward.
  #3  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:38 PM
davidmich davidmich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That was not a ruling on a summons. It was a ruling on whether the lawsuit may go forward.
I understand. My question, though was what would happen if a sitting president were actually summoned and refused?
  #4  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:40 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmich View Post
I understand. My question, though was what would happen if a sitting president were actually summoned and refused?
The trial court can enter sanctions, including a default judgment against the party refusing to appear.
  #5  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:44 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmich View Post
I understand. My question, though was what would happen if a sitting president were actually summoned and refused?
It appears to be a hypothetical, because it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the President would be subject to a deposition, not ordered to appear in court.
  #6  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:50 PM
davidmich davidmich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
The trial court can enter sanctions, including a default judgment against the party refusing to appear.
Thanks Procrustus. I'm assuming that any such judgments will have little effect on him retaining his office. Or could any such judgments lead to impeachment? If not can these default judgments we carried over to a period after his term/terms of office have expired. Is this uncharted territory?
  #7  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:13 PM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 13,574
Bill Clinton was required to sit for a deposition in Paula Jones' case while he was President. He was later found by the court to have given false testimony, which resulted in a finding of contempt of court, a fine, and an agreed-upon suspension of his license to practice law. This testimony, as well as conflicts between this testimony and his testimony in the independent counsel's investigation, constituted the formal legal basis for the impeachment proceedings against him.

(Since this is GQ, I will note that I am attempting to limit my response to the bare facts, and this is not intended as any sort of comment on the merits of any of those proceedings).
  #8  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:32 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
Bill Clinton was required to sit for a deposition in Paula Jones' case while he was President.
Technically Clinton agreed to it and was not forced. He could have tried to stay out of it and make courts force the issue or let him off but for whatever reason he didn't (almost certainly a political calculation on his part).

Quote:
In 1998, independent prosecutor Ken Starr served a subpoena on Clinton that ordered him to testify about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton soon agreed to testify voluntarily, an arrangement Starr went along with because it headed off a potential challenge to the subpoena on constitutional grounds.

SOURCE: https://www.apnews.com/e955c483fbbf4e069b6e547f043bf57d

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-17-2018 at 03:33 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017