Chuck Cooper Isn't Yanking Lawsuit Questioning House Impeachment Testimony
A notable Republican lawyer says he wants a Washington judge to decide whether client Charles Kupperman can testify lawfully at the House impeachment inquiry, despite objections from the Trump White House.
November 08, 2019 at 01:17 PM
5 minute read
A deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton appears unwilling to withdraw his lawsuit confronting whether President Donald Trump can lawfully block current and former aides from speaking to House impeachment investigators, in spite of their recent decision to rescind a subpoena demanding his testimony.
Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security adviser, filed a lawsuit against House Democrats and Trump last month seeking clarity on whether he should comply with a congressional subpoena seeking his testimony or follow the White House's instructions to not cooperate. Rather than litigate that question, the House earlier this week withdrew its subpoena, arguing that the move should render the case moot and cause it to be dismissed.
In a letter to the House, Kupperman's lawyer Charles Cooper on Friday said he was "dismayed" that the committees involved in the impeachment probe "have chosen not to join us in seeking resolution from the judicial branch of this momentous constitutional question as expeditiously as possible."
Cooper, who is also representing Bolton, said both of his clients stand ready to testify if the court rules in favor of the House. A hearing in the case is set for Dec. 10 in front of U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia, a timeline that potentially renders any testimony from Kupperman irrelevant to the fast-moving impeachment inquiry.
"It is important both to Dr. Kupperman and to Ambassador Bolton to get a definitive judgment from the judicial branch determining their Constitutional duty in the face of conflicting demands of the legislative and executive branches," Cooper said in Friday's letter.
House leaders earlier this week suggested that the key question raised in Kupperman's suit would be resolved more quickly in a separate case confronting the would-be testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn. But Cooper disputed that any decision in the McGahn case, pending before a different trial judge in Washington, would have a bearing on Kupperman and Bolton.
In their push for McGahn's testimony, House lawyers have underscored that they are not seeking information from him concerning national security and foreign affairs. House lawyers have acknowledged that, if lawmakers were pursuing that information, the president's assertion of so-called "absolute testimonial immunity" over his former White House counsel might have been valid.
"Here, unlike McGahn, information concerning national security and foreign affairs is at the heart of the the committees' impeachment inquiry, and it is difficult to imagine any question that the committees' might put to Dr. Kupperman that would not implicate these sensitive areas," Cooper wrote in Friday's letter to House general counsel Douglas Letter.
The McGahn case is much further along than the Kupperman matter. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia recently heard arguments, and she appeared to lean toward a ruling in support of the House's effort to secure McGahn's testimony. The judge is expected to rule by the end of this month.
Cooper contested the House's suggestion that Kupperman filed his lawsuit as a delay tactic. House leaders, he said, "are mistaken to say Dr. Kupperman's lawsuit is intended 'to delay or otherwise obstruct the committees' vital investigatory work.'"
"Nor has the lawsuit been coordinated in any way with the White House, any more than it has been coordinated with the House of Representatives," Cooper wrote. "If the House chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of Dr. Kupperman and Ambassador Bolton, let the record be clear: that is the House's decision."
During a telephone conference Wednesday, Leon declined to back away from the schedule he'd earlier set for the case, telling the lawyers that the expedited briefing schedule "will remain intact." The first round of court papers are due next week.
"I fully appreciate that the decision to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit is solely up to Mr. Kupperman and his counsel," Leon said. "I will say nothing further on that point."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readHigh Court Asked to Review DOJ's 'Illusory Promise,' Religious Charter School, Meta Class Action
3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250