The RNC believes that a mere reading of the deposition transcript will refute the DNC’s assertions, which range from wholly speculative to wishfully inaccurate. In particular, the hearsay from anonymous sources in the Politico article is not probative and cannot rebut Mr. Spicer’s sworn testimony under cross-examination. Further, as to the DNC’s previously-denied request for a deposition of Mr. Priebus (ECF No. 182), the DNC still has no evidence that Mr. Priebus was involved in ballot security activities. As to its new request for depositions of Messrs. Roman and Parscale, the DNC concedes that they were not RNC personnel at all, and thus were not subject to the Decree. Finally, the request flies in the face of this Court’s instruction on November 29, 2017: “[A]sk for [discovery] on any basis you want, but I just want to let you know that I anticipate that unless you have other evidence that what [Mr. Spicer] said is not accurate and it’s material, I’m not going to be inclined to go any further.” Tr. at 50 (emphasis added).
This may all be over very soon.
I wrote here at Slate on what that means.
[This post has been updated.]