Whoa. Ex-Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman wants to add House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving as a defendant in his lawsuit.
Irving is the one who would carry out “inherent contempt”—the rarely-used authority to jail & fine witnesses who defy congressional subpoenas.
Irving is the one who would carry out “inherent contempt”—the rarely-used authority to jail & fine witnesses who defy congressional subpoenas.
This is really something.
Kupperman’s new motion says he is at “imminent and substantial risk” of being held in inherent contempt.
Because the SAA enforces that, Kupperman wants to add him as a defendant.
Kupperman’s new motion says he is at “imminent and substantial risk” of being held in inherent contempt.
Because the SAA enforces that, Kupperman wants to add him as a defendant.
To be clear: There are no indications that House Dems are preparing to revive their inherent contempt authority—against Kupperman or anyone else.
If Judge Leon says Kupperman can’t sue the House, though, the House could **theoretically** use inherent contempt against Kupperman.
If Judge Leon says Kupperman can’t sue the House, though, the House could **theoretically** use inherent contempt against Kupperman.
And there we have it: in its reply brief, the House says it’s not pursuing inherent contempt against Kupperman, noting that the subpoena has already been withdrawn.
