A judge is going to make a decision at 5:00 pm this evening.

[kentuck]

About Mulvaney wanting to join the "appeal" with Kupperman and Bolton.

What is he going to rule?

[jberryhill]

1. Yes

No reason not to.

[triron]

2. You tell me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The judge will allow it.

There's no reason not to; all three are asking the same question, which is whether executive branch officials are required to honor a congressional subpoena. That question will not be answered this evening. Also, the hearing is scheduled for 5:00; that doesn't mean the judge will make a decision at the hearing.

[CaptainTruth]

7. Kupperman filed the lawsuit. What if he says no, he doesn't want Mulvaney to be part of it?

Seems like the person who filed the suit should have some say in who "crashes their party," so to speak, & barges in wanting to join their case. Especially when it looks like Mulvaney is probably doing it so he can drag out the case & delay a final decision.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. That doesn't matter.

Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says:

(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

(2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

It doesn't matter that another party might not like it. They would have to show that there is no common question of law or fact that would prevent joinder of the additional party.

[Iliyah]

9. Mulvaney can filed a separate lawsuit with the same

cites and argument. The court would probably consolidate the lawsuits anyways. Therefore, I would think the judge would allow it pursuant to the approval of the original claimant and lawyers.

[Firestorm49]

4. All of that court stacking wasn't done just for the hell of it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. This is a procedural matter having nothing to do

with any presumed political leanings of the court. This particular judge has been on the bench for almost 20 years, so he wouldn't have been part of any Trump "stacking" attempts.

[RKP5637]

6. Yes n/t

[empedocles]

10. Mulvaney following trump orders to take distraction/deconstruction/destruction

from the Cong hearings, to the . . . courts?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. So Mulvaney withdrew his motion at the last minute

and will be filing his own separate lawsuit. My initial impression was that the judge would have allowed it, but on closer examination, maybe not. The basic issue for all of them is the same, that is, whether executive branch employees have to comply with congressional subpoenas, but Kuppermann has just withdrawn his lawsuit, leaving only Bolton, who, unlike Mulvaney, no longer works for the government, and didn't want Mulvaney's allegiance to Trump to fog up his issues. But since Mulvaney is suddenly out, too - leaving only Bolton - and Kupperman's claim is moot. It would appear that Mulvaney is still trying to defend Trump (and himself, since he seems to be up to his neck in this cesspool).