About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Letter from Schiff, E. Engel, and Maloney to Kirk and Charles Cooper re: Kupperman Lawsuit Whistleblower Complaint on Ukraine (Kelly Smith, comp.) 1 (10/26/2019)

handle is hein.presidents/usgvtwht0111 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                      Cxangress of the Uhith Qftates
                                wslingtonl,   act 20515

                                    October 26, 2019

Michael W. Kirk, Esq. & Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Cooper &  Kirk PLLC
1523 New  Hampshire Avenue  N.W.
Washington, DC  20036

Dear Messrs. Kirk and Cooper:

       On October 16, 2019, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the
Committee  on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform requested that your
client, Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, appear voluntarily for a deposition pursuant to the House of
Representatives' impeachment inquiry.

       You subsequently informed the Committees that Dr. Kupperman would not appear at a
deposition on Monday, October 28, 2019, if he did not receive a subpoena by Friday, October
25, 2019. The Committees served your client, through you as counsel, with a duly authorized
subpoena yesterday afternoon compelling his appearance for a deposition on Monday, October
28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

       Shortly thereafter, you informed the Committees that you had filed a 17-page complaint
in federal court on behalf of Dr. Kupperman seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether he
should comply with the subpoena--even though such a complaint cannot be decided by a court
and is legally without merit.' The complaint references an opinion from the Department of
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone claiming that Dr.
Kupperman  is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony, as well as a letter
from Cipollone in which he states that the President directs your client take the extraordinary
step of defying a lawful congressional subpoena.2

       Dr. Kupperman's  lawsuit-lacking in legal merit and apparently coordinated with
the White House-is  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. Notwithstanding this attempted obstruction, the duly
authorized subpoena remains  in full force and Dr. Kupperman remains legally obligated to
appear for the deposition on Monday. The deposition will begin on time and, should your
client defy the subpoena, his absence will constitute evidence that may be used against him
in a contempt proceeding.

       In light of the direction from the White House, which lacks any valid legal basis, the
Committees shall consider your client's defiance of a congressional subpoena as additional
evidence of the President's obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry. Such willful

       'See Compl., Kupperinan v. US. House of Representatives et al, No. 19 Civ. 3224 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 25,
2019).
       2See id. 18 & Ex. B.


PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most