Oh My - Breaking - Judge Dismisses lawsuit from Bolton Aid who refused

[malaise]

to Testify at Impeachment hearing

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/30/kupperman-ukraine-lawsuit-dismiss-091407
<snip>
A federal judge on Monday scrapped an effort by a former top aide to John Bolton to determine whether he could be required to testify before House impeachment investigators, declaring the matter moot and outside the court’s power to resolve.

Charles Kupperman, who was Bolton’s deputy when Bolton was national security adviser, filed suit in October after he was subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee but ordered to ignore the subpoena by President Donald Trump. In his suit, Kupperman asked for a judge’s help to resolve the conflicting demands.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Just saw that on MSNBC.

The case was dismissed for mootness, so not as big a deal as we might think.

[malaise]

4. Me too

[TruckFump]

17. Me, three.

[jberryhill]

5. What fun? It was dismissed as moot

House Democrats withdrew the subpoena and rendered the case moot.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Yeah, I just now heard that, too. And here's the opinion:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/30/politics/court-ruling-kupperman-lawsuit-subpoena/index.html

[angrychair]

14. This is actually disconcerting

Do we know why they withdrew the subpoena?

Is the legislative branch giving up and allowing the executive branch to defy Congress?

Asking as I have no context for why Congress would withdraw the subpoena and not continue to hold these people accountable for not complying with a lawful subpoena from Congress.

[slumcamper]

23. Or, alternatively, is the legislative branch ceding power and authority to the judicial branch?

Equally disconcerting.

[2naSalit]

6. It seems the

Judiciary is not interested in getting involved, can't blame them.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. DoJ and House both asked for it to be dismissed.

[jberryhill]

7. Correct, the House withdrew the subpoena

So there was no point in continuing the case.

[elleng]

10. Thanks. IMPORTANT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. I do like this quote, though, on page 10:

"[T]here is no case that supports the proposition that naked lawyers' assurances are themselves sufficient." I don't know if I'd trust the assurances of naked lawyers, either.

[al bupp]

15. Bad writing

I assume that the judge meant the "naked" to modify the assurances, not the lawyers themselves, e.g.: lawyers' naked assurances instead of naked lawyers' assurances, though the latter is decidedly more amusing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Of course that's what it meant, but it's funnier the other way.

Some lawyers shouldn't be naked (Rudy Giuliani and Bill Barr, I'm talking to you).

[al bupp]

18. Agreed, however, a naked assurance could be just as bad, though

Imagine a one w/ a dangling participle, for instance.

[Sloumeau]

21. I, myself, never take assurances from naked lawyers. :)

[bdamomma]

3. Interesting.

nt

[2naSalit]

8. Very interesting...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Not so interesting, as it turns out.

It won't mean much because the case was dismissed for mootness because the subpoena was withdrawn.

[2naSalit]

12. Indeed.

But what will be the *reason* offered for defying the subpoena then? That's what I want to see. They come up with some real crazy stuff. Surely there will be more stonewalling.

Granted the case being dropped by the House should have settled it but I think they needed to hear it from the judge. So it's back to them against the House again, the Constitution stands, for now.

[spanone]

19. Does this mean that if they had subpoenaed Bolton, they could have got a ruling this quick?

[malaise]

20. Ha

We can dream

[Sloumeau]

22. I suspect the quickness of the ruling is related to the mootness of the case. :)

[FBaggins]

24. It also wasn't so quick

The House withdrew the subpoena almost eight weeks ago.

[progressoid]

25. Way to get right on that Judge

[onenote]

28. Did you read the opinion?

If you did, I guess you missed the part where the judge discusses the motions to dismiss, the briefing on that motion and the oral argument on the motions.

[MasonDreams]

26. Naked Lawyers Involved in Cover-ups

[Cartaphelius]

27. Cover-ups Nakedly Involved Lawyers

Cover-Ups, absent the Naked Involvement Of Lawyers, Are
Criminal.

But As Long As They Remain Secretly Involved no crime is
committed?

Something really stinks as it remains a verifiable number
of Lawyers, who then become judges or Supreme Court
Judges, do so as criminals that haven't been caught, yet.