The House of Representatives assured a federal judge Tuesday that it would not seek to compel the testimony of former National Security Council official Charles Kupperman, even as it prepared for a Senate impeachment trial.
Can a lawyer please explain this to me. Why does the House wants to avoid coming to a decision on whether someone has to comply with a subpoena?
Leon just might rule that House subpoenas are less important than a presidential order not to testify…it would go against precedent, but some conservative judges don’t have problems with that if it helps their cause. The House is avoiding setting a new precedent that would cut their oversight powers, and they really don’t need Kupperman’s testimony now. He’s better as a marker of how Trump interfered with the investigation really, and if they get Bolton then he’s totally irrelevant (and mostly is anyways, he’d just confirm some stuff that they already have and be a hostile witness).
Note that this doesn’t stop the House from calling Bolton or anyone else during the Senate trial…it’s possible that they realized this may happen when Leon got the case and that’s why they held the subpoena of Bolton.
Dear Dick Leon,
The Subpoena was dropped. That should have ended your involvement. The fact that it didn’t is either corruption or narcissism.
So, “your honor,” which are you: vain or corrupt?
Maybe because Dems see the writing on the wall with this SCOTUS, and don’t want to hand it a horrible-precedent-setting case in which it’d eventually rule against compelled testimony in impeachment-related matters?
Maybe Dem strategy is to wait until a Senate trial, when the Republican clown car tries to compel testimony from everyone but Biden’s chiropodist. If, in response to that madness, Roberts gives the opposite precedent to Republicans, then he unintentionally hands Speaker Pelosi an ax-handle moving forward?
But IANAL, so what do I know?
(And why am I answering every question with a question?)
Biden’s chiropodist is Ukrainian, you know. 
Why not both! I don’t see them as mutually exclusive.
I am confused. The headline implies that the House won’t issue a subpoena even for the Senate trial. Can a lawyer help me? Surely the House as a body has nothing to do with calling witnesses at that trial, but the impeachment managers do in theory have that ability (at least until and only if the Senate decides to change the impeachment rules currently in their manual). And Judge Leon has zero jurisdiction over the calling of witnesses in that trial unless the rules are changed in a very weird way (after all, the current rules allow the Senate to override Chief Justice Robert’s rulings by a simple majority vote).
So is this just a poor headline? Or my misunderstanding?
He won’t
Though precedents are reversible, his decision will always be prominent.
OT—but good news!
.
Why are you asking? And why is this posting different from all other postings?
You only get to ask that if you’re the youngest poster in the thread.
I really don’t understand what the House is doing here. The judge is a jerk, but I find it very hard to believe that he would reach a different view of the merits than prior judges from both parties. All I would expect is a ruling that might cause Bolton to testify. Bolton talked to Trump. They want Bolton under oath.
My guess is that they fear Judge Leon enough that they prefer to just let the multiple rulings from the DC Cir and 2nd Cir do the talking, and expect to get relief quicker from the DC Circuit (and a binding ruling at that) from the currently pending case involving the McMahon Subpoena which was upheld by Judge Jackson.
It is also possible that they want the case before Leon over with. The risk of leaving it before Leon is that defendants would challenge all future subpoenas and then ask that they be treated as a related case to the one before Leon, getting all future litigation transferred to Leon. Perhaps it has been worth giving up Kupperman in return for Leon letting go, so that any future subpeona challenges can go to Judge Jackson (House would try that) or are randomly assigned.
That said, I don’t think that is going to get Bolton to testify, who is who they want to testify…
So sort of scratching my head…
Do the Democrats understand that when you assure the courts ,or anyone, we are in the Trump years and you may lie your ass off.
They don’t particularly want Bolton to testify. They don’t know what gaslighting or exculpatory crap he might spin, and they don’t need him.
This makes a lot of sense.
Not a lawyer; but having followed other discussions on this topic my general take is there is already enough precedent to compel testimony from a subpoena, and the House leadership does not want this Trump-leaning judge messing with that precedent for his own reasons. So keep the powder dry (and the precedent cases un-messed with) to await another time where any such testimony is more valuable (like the Senate trial).
Compelling Kupperman to honor his oath to the constitution is a slippery slope that could lead to holding Trump accountable.
Because on this night, we only drink from unsubstantiated wine.
Joe Biden has also decided that Congressional Subpoenas are toothless.