HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Mulvaney asks to join law...

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 09:53 AM

Mulvaney asks to join lawsuit over conflicting demands for impeachment testimony

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:35 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 Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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,” Mulvaney’s 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.” Mulvaney’s request, if granted, would add further weight to a lawsuit that could have far-reaching effects on the House’s inquiry into the president’s 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 country’s 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

18 replies, 1212 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

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 09:59 AM

1. The House just withdrew the first subpeona so as to moot the case.

Guess the judge hasn't ruled on the dismissal yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:32 AM

6. I read the judge has decided to

hear the case anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:00 AM

2. His rear end is getting warm...

and he's worried about being scapegoated. He ought to be scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:17 AM

3. Yup. tRump threw Sondland under bus. Mulvaney expecting his turn. So he wants to be forced.


"Please don't throw me in the briar patch!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:22 AM

5. Mick the Prick has been

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 10:18 AM

4. He may be seeing the bus headlights

particularly after he insisted on national TV that there was a "quid pro quo" and that everyone does that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 11:03 AM

7. He knows he is about to get thrown under the bus...

...and is hedging his bets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 11:19 AM

8. Republicans are making the judicial system into the Gong Show

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 12:14 PM

9. This is all about taking it to the SCOTUS where they believe they wuill win. Ergo, even if we win

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 01:20 PM

10. I don't understand the questioning of if they can be compelled to show up after being...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWBTATTReg (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 01:33 PM

12. A lot of smoke and mirrors..

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..

Speech or Debate Clause, a provision in the United States Constitution that provides immunity to members of Congress for statements made in either house. Sovereign immunity, the prevention of lawsuits or prosecution against rulers or governments without their given consent.



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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 01:39 PM

13. Thanks! I like your 'meant to keep the bottom line hidden..of course..'

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 01:26 PM

11. There's a twist...

The Rats are starting to form their own "ship."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 01:43 PM

14. When The Court Rules Against Mulvaney

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 02:17 PM

15. Sure hope court expedites this.

Given how crucial the investigation is -- and how high the stakes are for the nation -- I sure hope the court doesn't dilly dally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 05:03 PM

16. They think they have the SCOTUS in their pocket. They might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 05:11 PM

17. I don't think Trump even knows Mulvaney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 9, 2019, 07:57 PM

18. STOP THREATENING

Lock them up and $1,000 per day until they comply
That is what you and would get.

No one is above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread