even this doesn't quite answer the question though
-
-
Seems to me Trump was free to go to court to seek an order to block any of this. Could've sought to quash the subpoenas. Didn't.
6 replies 9 retweets 32 likes -
They would not have been successful at quashing the subpoenas and probably wouldn’t have succeeded in delaying anything. There is little that can be done to prevent a willing witness from testifying, especially if she’s willing to risk being fired for it.
4 replies 15 retweets 42 likes -
I agree but it is a gambit they did not even try which I think is notable
4 replies 5 retweets 16 likes -
If Trump had tried to block the depositions and lost spectacularly, as is likely, he would have given impeachment even more momentum.
0 replies 6 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @RealFacelessMan @joshgerstein and
Not if the witness planned to testify anyway and the suit essentially sought to enjoin such testimony.
2 replies 3 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @EricColumbus @RealFacelessMan and
I think the key thing here is that the witness don't want to wait. And that reality severely limits WH options. But you really think they'd be shut down that quickly on exec priv grounds for NSC staff?
2 replies 4 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm @EricColumbus and
We're about to find out http://bit.ly/2BHjSB9
7 replies 23 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @joshgerstein @joshtpm and
One odd thing about this brief is that it raises a second issue -- whether the subpoena is authorized by House rules (pp. 11-14). That argument strikes me as a near-certain loser but I don't get why Kupperman included it if he was eager to testify.
3 replies 8 retweets 28 likes
Forestall the issue being separately litigated for future witnesses?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.