Deputy to Bolton Asks Court to Weigh in on Testifying

[Fenixgoon]

Impeachment witness asks federal judge to decide if he is obliged to testify | CNN Politics

A key witness in the impeachment inquiry has sought for a court to decide if he should testify, caught between a House subpoena and a demand from the White House to protect President Donald Trump's immunity from testifying to Congress.

www-m.cnn.com

"Plaintiff is faced with irreconcilable commands by the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government and, accordingly, seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court as to whether he is lawfully obliged to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Defendants demanding his testimony '[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry,' or he is lawfully obliged to abide by the assertion of immunity from congressional process made by the President in connection with the testimony sought from Plaintiff," the lawsuit states.


I think the specific wording here is very important. Also, I don't see how any court would allow the president to assert immunity. If the court rules in favor of congress (which it should lest the very idea of America go out the window), this will be another major blow to the administration's claims over executive power.

Otherwise, what good is subpoena power (or congressional oversight, for that matter) if you can just order people not to testify?

 

[ivwshane]

Seems like a pretty easy case. How can Congress do it’s constitutional duty of oversight of The executive if the executive can simply ignore it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is long settled. Exec. Priv. does not extend to matters of impeachment. His duty is not to the Executive or Legislative Branches but the Constitution and as Nixon learned that means he needs to comply with the process.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a ploy to avoid involvement & retribution from the GOP establishment down the road. Those who testify freely & honestly will be shunned. Those who hold the line will have made their bones in the GOP. With us or against us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a ploy to avoid involvement & retribution from the GOP establishment down the road. Those who testify freely & honestly will be shunned. Those who hold the line will have made their bones in the GOP. With us or against us.

Certainly The President's Men were glad to go to prison. Perhaps this guy wants the same?

 

[Jhhnn]

Certainly The President's Men were glad to go to prison. Perhaps this guy wants the same?

Not quite. There's no allegation that he's done anything illegal. He's stalling, hoping the whole thing swirls on by. His best case scenario is that it's resolved before he has to testify.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not quite. There's no allegation that he's done anything illegal. He's stalling, hoping the whole thing swirls on by. His best case scenario is that it's resolved before he has to testify.

This is now an official matter of judiciary level and impeachment inquiry. Maddow went into this and I waded through a lot of the judges opinion on the so called "fake impeachment" that Barr was trying to support on the legal side. Suffice it to say this wasn't just a ruling but the absolute destruction of the GOP and Trump Administration arguments. Everything about this is now House AND judiciary in one piece to which appeals can be made while the witness is in jail. This is a hot nuke now and if the witness and attorney thought they had a leg to stand on they've just found it is planted on ground zero for a megaton blast.

It's impossible to overstate how this ruling has changed things from a legal perspective and singing and dancing won't protect anyone from that air detonation overhead.

 

[interchange]

There is no claim of executive privilege that I understand. There is claim of immunity which is ridiculous. I think putting this in the courts ASAP is the right thing. It should be summary impeachment/removal instead, but that ain't happening so forcing this to the Supreme Court to slap Trump down is inevitable so the sooner the better. Not that I expect him to comply with the court either, but we can only hope there's a last straw to all this.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is now an official matter of judiciary level and impeachment inquiry. Maddow went into this and I waded through a lot of the judges opinion on the so called "fake impeachment" that Barr was trying to support on the legal side. Suffice it to say this wasn't just a ruling but the absolute destruction of the GOP and Trump Administration arguments. Everything about this is now House AND judiciary in one piece to which appeals can be made while the witness is in jail. This is a hot nuke now and if the witness and attorney thought they had a leg to stand on they've just found it is planted on ground zero for a megaton blast.

It's impossible to overstate how this ruling has changed things from a legal perspective and singing and dancing won't protect anyone from that air detonation overhead.

That ruling is not final. There's the court of appeals ahead, maybe an en banc ruling, and then on to the SCOTUS where it may or may not become final. That and Kupperman's own suit keep him out of the picture, which is where he wants to be. It's likely just temporary respite, but he'll take it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That ruling is not final. There's the court of appeals ahead, maybe an en banc ruling, and then on to the SCOTUS where it may or may not become final. That and Kupperman's own suit keep him out of the picture, which is where he wants to be. It's likely just temporary respite, but he'll take it.

At this point the DOJ position has been estopped which means that the judgement is valid until overturned by a higher court. The substance of the judges argument will stand as it is based on precidents and legal understandings from the time of Washington and strengthed over the two centuries from them. For now this decision is binding and the chances of anyone upending US jurisprudence is vanishingly slim with no reason to hear an appeal and let this very solid ruling stand on its own merit. Not even this SCOTUS is going to render the entire established a pile of junk with the resulting chaos without basis.

Unless the witness gets an immediate stay which might happen and won't hold, then stick a fork in it. If there is a stay then this will be expedited in a way not seen since the Bush/Gore election and yeah I believe that was screwed up. The difference is the election was a novel case, whereas this is as established as anything can be.

 

[HomerJS]

I can't stand Bolton but sounds like he is ready to spill the beans and wants iron boxers as a CYA

 

[Jhhnn]

At this point the DOJ position has been estopped which means that the judgement is valid until overturned by a higher court. The substance of the judges argument will stand as it is based on precidents and legal understandings from the time of Washington and strengthed over the two centuries from them. For now this decision is binding and the chances of anyone upending US jurisprudence is vanishingly slim with no reason to hear an appeal and let this very solid ruling stand on its own merit. Not even this SCOTUS is going to render the entire established a pile of junk with the resulting chaos without basis.

Unless the witness gets an immediate stay which might happen and won't hold, then stick a fork in it. If there is a stay then this will be expedited in a way not seen since the Bush/Gore election and yeah I believe that was screwed up. The difference is the election was a novel case, whereas this is as established as anything can be.

Please. Judgement is stayed until the appeals are ended. We're not there yet.

 

[hal2kilo]

Please. Judgement is stayed until the appeals are ended. We're not there yet.

Looks like there is already a case regarding this type of situation. There is a lawsuit the applies to McGann claiming immunity fromm testifying. Court date Halloween. How appropriate.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't stand Bolton but sounds like he is ready to spill the beans and wants iron boxers as a CYA

I didn't trust Bolton before & there's no reason to trust him now just because he might say something I want to hear.

 

[woolfe9998]

Please. Judgement is stayed until the appeals are ended. We're not there yet.

When did that happen? A motion must first be made to stay the court's order pending appeal. I wasn't aware one had been filed yet. And the stays are not always granted. Depends on a number of variables, not least of which is the moving party's chances of winning on appeal.

 

[Jhhnn]

When did that happen? A motion must first be made to stay the court's order pending appeal. I wasn't aware one had been filed yet. And the stays are not always granted. Depends on a number of variables, not least of which is the moving party's chances of winning on appeal.

Howell gave them until Wednesday to comply. I'm sure they make the appropriate appeals before then. As you say, there are a lot of ways for the appeals process to work out. If either the appeals court or the SCOTUS decides to review the case they'll issue a stay. Otherwise there would be no point to a review. Or they can direct the lower court ruling to stand w/o review, first the appeals court & finally the SCOTUS. Howell's ruling can be reversed in either court. Like I said, we're not really there yet, not quite.

 

[woolfe9998]

Howell gave them until Wednesday to comply. I'm sure they make the appropriate appeals before then. As you say, there are a lot of ways for the appeals process to work out. If either the appeals court or the SCOTUS decides to review the case they'll issue a stay. Otherwise there would be no point to a review. Or they can direct the lower court ruling to stand w/o review, first the appeals court & finally the SCOTUS. Howell's ruling can be reversed in either court. Like I said, we're not really there yet, not quite.

My understanding is that the deadline is to file a notice of appeal. If they want the matter stayed pending the appeal, then they also can make a motion to Howell or else directly to the Court of Appeals. If the motion is denied, then the materials have to be handed over and the appeals will effectively become moot.

What I'm saying is that this could effectively be over after one motion is decided. I don't think there is any remedy to SCOTUS if the appellate court denies a stay which will take far less time than deciding the appeal.

 

[Jhhnn]

My understanding is that the deadline is to file a notice of appeal. If they want the matter stayed pending the appeal, then they also can make a motion to Howell or else directly to the Court of Appeals. If the motion is denied, then the materials have to be handed over and the appeals will effectively become moot.

What I'm saying is that this could effectively be over after one motion is decided. There is no remedy to SCOTUS if the appellate court denies a stay which will take far less time than deciding the appeal.

And I'm equally sure that there is a mechanism to appeal to the SCOTUS for a stay & review no matter what the circuit court says. If they deny cert or rule for or against the defendant that's when it's finally over, when the district court ruling can be implemented.

28 U.S. Code § 2101 - Supreme Court; time for appeal or certiorari; docketing; stay

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[sportage]

Funny how your enemy becomes your friend, when Donald Trump is involved. Bolton is nutz and he always has been. He's a war hawk.
His fingers twitch to push that button just like a kid addicted to video gaming.
I wouldn't exactly trust anything John Bolton says, does, or claims.
I wouldn't classify him as a friend.
If he testifies he will only confuse the matter even more.

 

[interchange]

I wonder if it is actually better for this to get to SCOTUS even if it could be decided without any appeal options in lower court. I doubt this is the most critical testimony, and I think the bashing of the justice system/deep state nonsense would be the result. Attempting to defy or slander a conservative majority Supreme Court would be quite a thing.