HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A judge is going to make ...

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:26 AM

A judge is going to make a decision at 5:00 pm this evening.

About Mulvaney wanting to join the "appeal" with Kupperman and Bolton.

What is he going to rule?

11 replies, 1623 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply A judge is going to make a decision at 5:00 pm this evening. (Original post)
kentuck Nov 11 OP
jberryhill Nov 11 #1
triron Nov 11 #2
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 11 #3
CaptainTruth Nov 11 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 11 #8
Iliyah Nov 11 #9
Firestorm49 Nov 11 #4
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 11 #5
RKP5637 Nov 11 #6
empedocles Nov 11 #10
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 11 #11

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:28 AM

1. Yes


No reason not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:28 AM

2. You tell me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:28 AM

3. The judge will allow it.

There's no reason not to; all three are asking the same question, which is whether executive branch officials are required to honor a congressional subpoena. That question will not be answered this evening. Also, the hearing is scheduled for 5:00; that doesn't mean the judge will make a decision at the hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:46 AM

7. Kupperman filed the lawsuit. What if he says no, he doesn't want Mulvaney to be part of it?


Seems like the person who filed the suit should have some say in who "crashes their party," so to speak, & barges in wanting to join their case. Especially when it looks like Mulvaney is probably doing it so he can drag out the case & delay a final decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:51 AM

8. That doesn't matter.

Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says:

(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

(2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.


It doesn't matter that another party might not like it. They would have to show that there is no common question of law or fact that would prevent joinder of the additional party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 12:16 PM

9. Mulvaney can filed a separate lawsuit with the same

cites and argument. The court would probably consolidate the lawsuits anyways. Therefore, I would think the judge would allow it pursuant to the approval of the original claimant and lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:30 AM

4. All of that court stacking wasn't done just for the hell of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firestorm49 (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:37 AM

5. This is a procedural matter having nothing to do

with any presumed political leanings of the court. This particular judge has been on the bench for almost 20 years, so he wouldn't have been part of any Trump "stacking" attempts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 10:40 AM

6. Yes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 12:18 PM

10. Mulvaney following trump orders to take distraction/deconstruction/destruction

from the Cong hearings, to the . . . courts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2019, 08:30 PM

11. So Mulvaney withdrew his motion at the last minute

and will be filing his own separate lawsuit. My initial impression was that the judge would have allowed it, but on closer examination, maybe not. The basic issue for all of them is the same, that is, whether executive branch employees have to comply with congressional subpoenas, but Kuppermann has just withdrawn his lawsuit, leaving only Bolton, who, unlike Mulvaney, no longer works for the government, and didn't want Mulvaney's allegiance to Trump to fog up his issues. But since Mulvaney is suddenly out, too - leaving only Bolton - and Kupperman's claim is moot. It would appear that Mulvaney is still trying to defend Trump (and himself, since he seems to be up to his neck in this cesspool).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread