WASHINGTON (AP) — An ex-White House adviser
scheduled to testify before House impeachment investigators on Monday
has asked a federal court whether he should comply with a subpoena or
follow President Donald Trump’s directive against cooperating in what
the president dubs a “scam.”
Full Coverage: Trump impeachment inquiry
After getting a subpoena Friday, former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman quickly filed a lawsuit
in U.S. district court in Washington. He asked a judge to decide
whether he should accede to House demands for his testimony or to assert
“immunity from congressional process” as directed by Trump.
The
lawsuit came as Democrats’ impeachment inquiry continued at full speed
with a rare Saturday session. Philip Reeker, the acting assistant
secretary of state for Europe, took questions behind closed doors for
more than eight hours about Trump’s ouster of the ambassador of Ukraine
in May and whether he had knowledge about efforts to persuade Ukraine to
pursue politically motivated investigations. Reeker told the lawmakers
that he was disturbed by a campaign — led by Trump — to oust ambassador
Marie Yovanovitch in May and had supported efforts to publicly back her,
even though those statements were ultimately never issued by the
department.
Kupperman, who provided foreign policy advice
to the president, was scheduled to testify in a similar session on
Monday. In the lawsuit, Kupperman said he “cannot satisfy the competing
demands of both the legislative and executive branches.” Without the
court’s help, he said, he would have to make the decision himself — one
that could “inflict grave constitutional injury” on either Congress or
the presidency.
The impeachment inquiry
is rooted in a July 25 phone call Trump made to Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy. During the call, Trump asked the Ukrainian leader
to pursue investigations of Democratic political rival Joe Biden’s
family and Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election that propelled Trump into
the White House.
At the time of the call,
Trump was withholding congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine.
He has repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo for the Ukraine
investigations he was seeking, though witness testimony has contradicted
that claim.
Kupperman’s filing says “an
erroneous judgment to abide by the President’s assertion of testimonial
immunity would unlawfully impede the House from carrying out one of its
most important core Constitutional responsibilities” — the power of
impeachment — and subject Kupperman to “potential criminal liability for
contempt of Congress.”
On the other hand,
“an erroneous judgment to appear and testify in obedience to the House
Defendants’ subpoena would unlawfully impair the President in the
exercise of his core national security responsibilities ... by revealing
confidential communications” from advisers, according to the filing.
He
has asked the court to expedite a decision, but unless the judge issues
an opinion by Monday, Kupperman’s testimony might not occur as
scheduled.
Rejecting his arguments, the
three chairmen of the House committees overseeing the inquiry told
Kupperman’s lawyers in a letter that the suit was without merit and
appeared to be coordinated with the White House. They called the suit
“an obvious and desperate tactic by the President to delay and obstruct
the lawful constitutional functions of Congress and conceal evidence
about his conduct from the impeachment inquiry.”
The
chairmen also said Kupperman’s defiance of the subpoena would
constitute evidence in a contempt proceeding as well as additional
evidence of Trump’s obstruction of the inquiry. They said they planned
to proceed with the Monday session as scheduled.
The
lawsuit came as Democrats investigating the president won a victory in a
separate case. A federal judge ordered the Justice Department on Friday
to give the House secret grand jury testimony from special counsel
Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and affirmed the legality of the
Democrats impeachment inquiry. That decision could inform Kupperman’s
suit.
On Saturday, Trump tweeted that he’s “not concerned with the impeachment scam. I am not because I did nothing wrong.”
In
the House deposition, according to a person familiar with the
testimony, Reeker told the lawmakers he was disturbed by the effort to
oust Yovanovitch, and had supported efforts by some officials in the
department to put out statements of support for her in both March, right
before she was ousted, and in September, after the effort became
public. The person, like others, requested anonymity to discuss the
confidential testimony.
In both cases,
Reeker testified that the officials were told by Undersecretary for
Political Affairs David Hale that there would not be a statement,
according to the person.
Reeker also told
the lawmakers that he knew the military aid for Ukraine was being
delayed and that a White House meeting between Trump and Zelinskiy was
being delayed, but in both cases, didn’t know why, according to two
people familiar with the testimony.
While Reeker had some visibility into the matter, Ukraine is only one country in his portfolio of 50, he told investigators.
Lawmakers
leaving the meeting with Reeker said he was backing up testimony from
previous witnesses, most all of whom have detailed concerns with Trump’s
efforts to oust Yovanovitch and said they were wary of Rudy Giuliani,
Trump’s personal lawyer who was driving the push for the Ukrainian
probes.
Washington Rep. Denny Heck, a member
of the House intelligence panel, would not give details about the
closed-door interview but said, “It’s almost startling how much in
alignment all of the witnesses to date have been, in terms of their
affirmation of the fact pattern. I’m almost taken aback by it.”
As
was the case with other witnesses, the Trump administration directed
Reeker not to testify, according to two people familiar with the
situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to publicly discuss the interaction. But Reeker appeared
anyway after receiving his subpoena from the House, the people said.
Although
he is currently the top U.S. diplomat for Europe and has been since
Yovanovich was recalled earlier this year, Reeker was not directly
involved in debate over aid to Ukraine, which other current and former
officials have said was delegated to Ambassador to the European Union
Gordon Sondland and special envoy Kurt Volker.
Volker
testified and released text messages that detailed conversations
between him, Sondland and William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in
Ukraine. In the messages, Taylor wrote that he thought it was “crazy” to
withhold aid from Ukraine for help with a political campaign. Sondland
and Taylor, who still work for the government, have already testified
and detailed their concerns about the influence of Trump’s personal
lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine. Giuliani was leading the push for the
investigations.
Taylor testified that he was told the aid would be withheld until Ukraine conducted the investigations that Trump had requested.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
