endangers that claim. that was the point that bolton and cupperman made. they said we have never done anything like that, and we don t want mulvaney in our action. they claim they re completely neutral. they will do what the court directed them to do. whereas in mulvaney s case he appeared to be pro-executive. he had a position in the case, and they didn t want his position to tar their more neutral position. it is striking to me that a lot of this we have talked about this a bit before as we head into the formal part of this process. these fights between the branches who has to testify and who doesn t, there is very little jurisprudence on it and very little guidance by the courts. it is a kind of power struggle between these two branches about who has what power in what scenario, right? yes. but there are two layers of analysis here.
endangers that claim. that was the point that bolton and cupperman made. they said we have never done anything like that, and we don t want mulvaney in our action. they claim they re completely neutral. they will do what the court directed them to do. whereas in mulvaney s case he appeared to be pro-executive. he had a position in the case, and they didn t want his position to tar their more neutral position. it is striking to me that a lot of this we have talked about this a bit before as we head into the formal part of this process. these fights between the branches who has to testify and who doesn t, there is very little jurisprudence on it and very little guidance by the courts. it is a kind of power struggle between these two branches about who has what power in what scenario, right? yes. but there are two layers of analysis here. one is in the typical oversight area, that is nonimpeachment oversight, typically the