Mulvaney asks to join lawsuit over conflicting demands for impeachment testimony
Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2019, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: Washington Post
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Friday asked to join a federal lawsuit seeking a judicial ruling on whether Congress can compel President Trumps senior advisers to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The lawsuit was originally filed late last month by Charles Kupperman, a former top national security aide to Trump, who said he faced conflicting orders from House Democrats and the White House over whether he must participate in the investigation and needed the court to tell him what his constitutional duty was. Attorneys for Mulvaney said the acting chief of staff was facing the same dilemma.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Mulvaney earlier this week and threatened to hold him in contempt if he refused to comply. In response, White House counsel Pat Cipollone instructed him not to testify, saying Mulvaney, who skipped his scheduled deposition Friday morning, was protected by constitutional immunity that extended to all of Trumps current and former senior advisers. The questions raised in the case go to the heart of our representative government and its promise to secure individual liberty by dividing the awesome power of government amongst itself, Mulvaneys attorneys, Christopher Muha and William Pittard, wrote in the filing.
Mr. Mulvaney, like Mr. Kupperman, finds himself caught in that division, trapped between the commands of two of its co-equal branches with one of those branches threatening him with contempt, they wrote. He turns to this Court for aid. Mulvaneys request, if granted, would add further weight to a lawsuit that could have far-reaching effects on the Houses inquiry into the presidents efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals.
Democrats are keen on hearing from Mulvaney, who has emerged as a central player in consequential decisions involving Ukraine. Mulvaney effectively admitted in a news conference last month that the administration withheld U.S. military aid to Ukraine to muscle the countrys leaders into launching investigations that could help Trump politically. He later tried to walk back the remarks, but Democrats consider them to be a key piece of evidence in their impeachment case.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/09/mulvaney-asks-join-lawsuit-over-conflicting-demands-impeachment-testimony/
ETA - CNN has a copy of the court filing here (viewer) - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6544134-Mulvaney.html#document/p1
pecosbob
(7,533 posts)Guess the judge hasn't ruled on the dismissal yet.
demsocialist
(202 posts)hear the case anyways.
paleotn
(17,884 posts)and he's worried about being scapegoated. He ought to be scared.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,966 posts)"Please don't throw me in the briar patch!"
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)on Donie's "s*it list" for a while now. Incidentally, isn't he "acting chief" so his position is not really official, is it? Why are these people willing to end their careers to protect scum like Donnie?
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)particularly after he insisted on national TV that there was a "quid pro quo" and that everyone does that.
SKKY
(11,797 posts)...and is hedging his bets.
bucolic_frolic
(43,064 posts)Damage to the concept of subpoena will reverberate eventually thoughout the judicial system. Anyone in court will learn to contest the system, the lawyers and prosecutors, the judge; discovery will be refused.
KPN
(15,638 posts)in 2020, they cannot be held accountable for obstruction of justice because the SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
I really don't think this is about covering his ass with tRump. It's about permanent absolution.
SWBTATTReg
(22,077 posts)subpoenaed. If Congress was given the power to hold hearings, etc., and Congress is an equal branch of government, why then the ?s as to if they can be compelled to testify? Why then was Congress given the role of oversight of the Executive Branch of government? Seems contrary to me and they (those being forced to testify) are simply playing games and throwing up barriers in every manner they can, to not testify.
What in the world is 'constitutional immunity'? How is this different from Executive privilege?
Maxheader
(4,370 posts)Pretty global definition...and I don't feel like trying to track down and understand obscure
attorney lingo-ese ..meant to keep the bottom line hidden..of course..
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&sxsrf=ACYBGNRo0QNhgai7pvjfOWPuA2lwHIuPhg%3A1573323815004&source=hp&ei=JgTHXZm4OonYtAXsmqOwAQ&q=what+is+constitutional+immunity&oq=what+is+constitutional+immunity&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0.12949.19037..20903...0.0..0.1517.6091.4-1j0j2j2j1......0....1j2..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i131.knEl5TSVaeM&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4-34393lAhUJLK0KHWzNCBYQ4dUDCAc
SWBTATTReg
(22,077 posts)They can testify all they want, etc., but as to whether the testimony will be believed or not is a different story. Of course one doesn't want to 'lie' to Congress either, so I suspect that they all are fighting like mad to prevent giving any testimony which can be held against them later if they lied. Of course if they don't lie to begin with, this should not be a problem, but obviously since they've built a house of cards based upon lie after lie, it'll all come down tumbling w/ a crash with one more lie!
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)The Rats are starting to form their own "ship."
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Will he comply or will the ruling be appealed? In the meantime the SCOTUS could shortly have something to say regarding Trump appealing the court order to release 8 years of tax returns. If SCOTUS declines to take it up it should end the nonsense but will it?
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Given how crucial the investigation is -- and how high the stakes are for the nation -- I sure hope the court doesn't dilly dally.
TeamPooka
(24,210 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,253 posts)noneof_theabove
(410 posts)Lock them up and $1,000 per day until they comply
That is what you and would get.
No one is above the law.