court, just that process could take us to the election year. it seems like it s likely to, so the decision will be do they wait for it or not? this is what hampered the mueller investigation on the paf part of congress is they were waiting for these court battles to be resolved, and during the time pelosi was trying to fend off going down the impeachment road, this is what she was telling her caucus, this is important, we will win and once we win we ll get the information we need. even if they win those fights like they did last week, it can take a long time. so the question is, how long is it going to take, and do they have enough information to make a persuasive case on what they think is important and move forward, anyway? i don t think they ve decided completely whether they want to wait on courts in some of these cases and not others, or whether they re just going to completely put that off and go with what they have. maybe we ll have a better
your clients, again, that it is not dr. kupperman who contests your clients constitutional claim. it is president trump, and every president before him for at least the last half century, who have asserted testimonial immunity for their closest constitutional advisers. if your clients position on the merits of this issue is correct, it will prevail in court. committees want to talk to kupperman mostly because he was on that july 25th phone call between president trump and ukraine s president. kupperman has now made a roadblock. adam schiff says the democrats will not be deterred. sdp a private citizen cannot sue the congress when they fail to come in after being sued a lawful subpoena. we will make short sh rirks hrk
subpoena. i m going to testify. kupperman should be the push comes to shove. we ll see. i think the kupperman issue is worried about consequences whether they cooperate or not. when they ve got conflicting directives from the white house and congress, they re worried about legal exposure on both ends. if they testify, could there be some kind of punishment? could they try to crack down on these current government employees, try to find a way to punish them or sanction them or remove them from their posts. and if they don t then cooperate, are they worried about legal issues on their end? i think a lot of nome this situation, a lot of the potential witnesses, are in a very tight spot and are probably waiting to see what happens with the kupperman lawsuit because
or is it clear? now armed with additional i have a book out called how evidence of obstruction as well to read the constitution. as additional inferences that i talk about this. can drawn that this witness there s a difference between immunity and privilege. testimony would further incriminate the president of the so immunity is i am not going to united states. and i m happy to respond to a comply at all. couple of questions. so the president, for example, judges, legislators cannot be other witnesses will say sued personally for doing their they re going to do the same job. that s different from privilege. thing, wait for some guidance as you indicate in a supreme for the courts before they come court case involving president testify? i have more confidence in the nixon, the supreme court of the witnesses that we ve invited to united states said that nixon appear and will subpoena to cannot basically assert absolute appear that they will perform as immunity from a trial sp
court. last question. presumably the administration go ahead, sir. could jump in and ask as a third party, but there isn t a [ inaudible question ] no. precedent for that. we will not allow the white house to delay our unusual is not so weird in investigation. any acts of ok instructibstruct this process. kupperman was the deputy of this, any attempts to prevent national security adviser john the american people from learning about the president s misconduct will merely build a bolton. they stair v thehare the same l. case for obstruction of congress a court ruling could have broad impact on his potential by the president. let s keep in mind what we have testimony. boris sanchez joins us this learned in two short weeks morning from the white house. thanks to the courageous is the white house saying anything about how they think testimony of many state this will play out? department, defense department, and other national security reporter: good morning. not specifically. offi