This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen a lawyer do.

“The expansive notion of constitutional immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial process would constitute an overreach of executive power,” (judge) Marrero wrote.

and are looking for cover. Plus, the ruling would clear the way for anyone subpoena'd to testify, regardless of wh objections.

A positive ruling couldn't be appealed by the wh because they aren't a party to the suit.

btw, bolton and this guy share a lawyer. So it is very definately being coordinated.

Bolton is as evil and vindictive as trump is, but he isn't an idiot. He is going to destroy trump and try to come out as some kind of hero.

the White House can starting bringing lawyers in

This ruling may help the House maximize the period of the investigation without White House lawyers trying to mess them up

I see the DoJ and the White House as basically the same party in this. It's wrong but it is the way that it is.

I don't like or trust Bolton. But if, as part of his derangement, he mortally damages Trump's stay in the Oval office, I'll hold my nose while he does so.

All they can do is sit and council clients. The wh lawyers won't get a chance to cross examine anyone. That is up to the congress critters on the committees.

The senate is different. It's more trial like. The house is just conducting hearings. Different roles.

I couldn’t tell from the Times article who Kupperman is suing. The suit named the House, Trump, Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Maloney as defendants.

[link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/former-deputy-national-security-advisor-requests-declaratory-judgment-testimonial-immunity|

They asked for a response from the WH Counsel's office and got crickets. This looks to me as if the plaintiffs want to testify, but want the cover of a court decision to do so.

I'd bet dollar to donuts that Bolton wants to testify given how he was pushed out by Trump et al.

especially with respect to Bolton.

But it seems the media wants to swing the reasoning the other way and suggest that the Executive Branch's arguments to not comply Congressional subpoenas for any reason, could somehow be considered "valid" by a court, and that taking the issue to court to decide who has precedence, may cause "problems" for Democrats.

executive privilege is up against a congressional subpoena of a presidential senior adviser.

Indeed, judges are loathe to get involved in almost any fight between the two branches.

In its 1977 ruling in United States v. AT&T Co., the D.C. Circuit refused to resolve a dispute between the DOJ and the House of Representatives arising out of a subpoena the House had issued to a private company for records that DOJ claimed were protected by executive privilege. As Judge Harold Leventhal wrote:

and would be associated with Presidential conduct. I.e., what happened with Nixon and subpoenas (U.S. vs Nixon).

This administration has attempted to declare everything - both before the election and since, as "executive privilege". And since what Congress is doing right now is related to an "impeachment inquiry", which past precedents have established has a higher authority to obtain documents and witness testimony, then that would make it a bit different from the case you cite regarding a private company and DOJ vs Congress, where I expect Congress was asserting a right for some sort of general oversight.