Miscellaneous desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 20

How many times has Donald Trump been deposed?

More generally, on how many occasions has Donald Trump given live, sworn testimony under adversarial circumstances (i.e., examined by opposing counsel or law enforcement officials as part of a civil or criminal legal proceeding), under penalty of perjury?

Essentially, I'm curious about how much experience Trump has with being questioned under oath. How novel an experience would it be for Trump, and how recently has he had to brush up on the skills involved? (The context prompting such curiosity should be fairly obvious.) Legal affairs of Donald Trump refers to his involvement or association with thousands of lawsuits where he was directly or indirectly a party, but I would expect most cases are settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved without requiring Trump's direct questioning in or out of court. For the purposes of this question, affidavits and sworn statements don't count. Written responses to questions (vetted and proofread by his lawyers) don't count either; I'm looking for live questioning by adversaries only. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one [1] and possibly more - it's a very long document. 92.19.172.90 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that document, I now understand the section heading. In Britain, the phrase "been deposed" means "removed from office". In America it appears to mean what we would express by "How many times has Donald Trump been formally examined?". I'm not sure if the other meaning is also current in America. In England, giving a deposition means making a formal statement - there's no element of questioning. See Deposition (law). 92.19.172.90 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "How many times has Donald Trump been deposing" was intended. "To depose" per se doesn't exclude questioning, e.g M-W "a law: to testify to under oath or by affidavit"

No, "to be deposed" is correct. It's lawyer jargon, not ordinary English, but it is the term applied to the person giving testimony outside of open court. --Trovatore (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And sorry yesterday I forgot to sign 194.174.76.21 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Another one: [2] 92.19.172.90 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here in America, the other meaning of the word "deposed" specifically means "removed from office by force" -- and in that sense, President Trump has never been deposed and never will be. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:9ED6 (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There in America, many said never when he proposed taking office. Even while he was supposed to grab it. It's not too late to hedge your bet. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

One more [3]. Probably the tip of the iceberg. 92.19.172.248 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two American dictionaries that disagree with 2601's implication of "by force". [4] [5] Now if there's more to say on the actual question... --69.159.62.113 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is not necessarily "by force", but there is a clear implication that it involves power changing hands other than by the process regularly provided for. You would not say, for example, that someone who loses an election is "deposed", except perhaps in a country where he is just not supposed to actually lose elections, ever. --Trovatore (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Abnormal or controversial perhaps. But even if the removal follows the legal processes it may still fit. A whole bunch of sources refer to Carles Puigdemont as a deposed leader [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and this includes US ones [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] even though nearly everyone including the government he headed and I think including him seems to accept for now the validity of the court orders etc which lead to his removal. (I've tried to exclude sources which are simply duplicating some news agency but am not sure if I was completely successful.) So if for example, some special prosecutor uncovers alleged evidence of wrong doing by some US president and this president disputes that evidence and calls it a witch hunt and fires his AG/s until one of them fires this special prosecutor all of which eventually lead to this president being impeached and convicted by the narrowest of margins and this president and his supporters then keep talking about the coup by the fake news main stream media and swampy deep state against him; I would hardly be surprised if at least some sources say he was deposed even if his removal followed the legal processes in the US. After all no US president has even been convicted after impeachment, and only one has ever been impeached, with one more where it was perhaps a serious threat before resignation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that "to be deposed", in the sense at issue, means "to answer questions under oath outside of open court". So it's a grammatically passive verb, but with an active meaning. In Latin they call those — wait for it — deponent verbs. --Trovatore (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

In the English language, there exist homophones. I'm surprised that people I would have normally thought of as well learned had no prior knowledge of such a concept. It is clear from the context of the question that the word "deposed" here is using the "been formally examined by a court of law" definition, and not the "been removed from office" definition. --Jayron32 16:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whom you mean, unless you keep track of the contributions of IP addresses. The named contributors so far are TOAT, who asked the question, and me, and I clearly understand the meaning at issue. --Trovatore (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Oh, I guess there was also IH, but he was apparently engaged in word play. --Trovatore (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging Great Wall template

The template is a bit misleading in make it appear that the Great Wall goes from east to west like a straight line. The Ming dynasty wall had an outer wall and inner wall and a spur going down Shanxi. https://www.china--highlights.com/greatwall/history/ming-dynasty-wall.htm for an illustration (remove double dash because domain name is blocked for whatever reason. I'm going to try to rearrange the template to reflect the depth of the Great Wall.

Is Niangzi Pass the only location in the template that is part of the spur through Shanxi? Which locations in the template are part of the inner wall? Muzzleflash (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the template is a good way to gain a full understanding of the organization of the various parts of the Wall. It's sole purpose is to link people to articles about the topic; if you want to know more about how the Wall is organized, read the main article... --Jayron 32 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]