Impeachment witness asks federal judge to decide if he is obliged to testify

[BlueTex]

This is excellent news… Once a federal judge decides that the administration can’t exert “absolute immunity” the rats will start jumping ship in numbers…

Former Bolton aide asks court if he's required to testify in impeachment probe

[Smyrna]

concluded that the Counsel to the President was not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity because the inquiry did not “involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs," Cooper noted. "National security and foreign affairs are at the heart of the information that the House Defendants seek from Plaintiff in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry."

It appears that there’s an established precedent.

[WorldWatcher]

He noted that a court ruled in 2008 that there are limits on claims of “absolute immunity” of presidential advisers to congressional testimony, even if those limits hadn’t been tested. That court determined that President George W. Bush’s counsel, Harriet Miers and other senior administration officials, did not enjoy “absolute immunity.” But the court left the guidelines ambiguous.

“The district court in Miers further concluded that the Counsel to the President was not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity because the inquiry did not “involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs,” Cooper noted. “National security and foreign affairs are at the heart of the information that the House Defendants seek from Plaintiff in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry.”

To quote from the article in the OP in context.

You left off the bolded part. Which shows that no, the Miers case didn’t set precedent.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

[TommyLucchese]

Sneaky witness. This was clever.

[Zander]

@TommyLucchese

Sneaky witness. This was clever.

I have been really surprised that more lawyers in this haven’t recommended this to their clients. Getting a judge to order something your client wants to do is always a good idea.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

There is no such precedent.

Executive Immunity is determined through a balancing test - whether the public interest in the testimony outweighs the national security concerns.

[Plasmaball]

It’s funny how they dont want to be protected. That says something here…

[BlueTex]

@TheDoctorIsIn

There is no such precedent.

Executive Immunity is determined through a balancing test - whether the public interest in the testimony outweighs the national security concerns.

It’s also not blanket immunity

[TommyLucchese]

@Zander

I have been really surprised that more lawyers in this haven’t recommended this to their clients. Getting a judge to order something your client wants to do is always a good idea.

“I didn’t want to, I tried to fight it and the judge ordered me too!” seems like an effective way to ward off a mean tweet that will sic tens of thousands of absolute psychos on you and your family.

[Safiel]

It is a good idea for any witness caught in that tug of war to cover their ass with a court order. Effectively protects them from contempt of Congress if the Judge rules one way and from lawsuits from Trump or the Department of Justice if the Judge rules the other way.

[Adam]

@Safiel

It is a good idea for any witness caught in that tug of war to cover their ass with a court order. Effectively protects them from contempt of Congress if the Judge rules one way and from lawsuits from Trump or the Department of Justice if the Judge rules the other way.

Safiel, do you have an opinion?