How Hope Hicks's Testimony Again Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative

[Doc7505]

How Hope Hicks's Testimony Again Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative ​

While the press portrayed Hope Hicks's silence as all-inclusive, in reality she testified at length and in detail about all aspects of Trump's presidential campaign.​

How Hope Hicks Again Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative
24 Jun 2019 ~~ By Margot Cleveland
Following the Thursday release of the transcript from Hope Hicks’s testimony before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, the media quickly concentrated on the questions Trump’s former communications director refused to answer.~~ in reality Hicks testified at length and in detail about all aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. And that testimony established yet again that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax... Several times Hicks confirmed the lack of contacts between top Trump campaign members and Russia. “I’m telling you,” Hicks testified, “I wasn’t aware in the campaign of any contacts with Russian officials.”... Democrats on the committee nonetheless pushed the Russia collusion narrative by attempting to portray an email Hicks received from the editor-in-chief of the Russian internet newspaper Vzglyad as evidence of a Russian conspiracy.
By the end of her nearly eight hours of testimony last week, Hicks obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years, even more expertly than Mueller did in his special counsel report. As one Democrat noted during the hearing, Hicks was “with [Trump] every day,” during both the primary and general election. She would have known had the campaign colluded with Russia. “I think the president knows that I would tell the truth, and the truth is there was no collusion. And I’m happy to say that as many times as is necessary today.”

~~~~~~
It looks like the Dems are just trying to run out the clock on an investigation of their own wrongdoing.
Jerry Nadler's a politician charlatan and a 'Total Scumbag' whilst being very, very handsomely and secretly rewarded by other Total Scumbags, who are much higher in the secret hierarchy than he is, to propagate this political stunt. That's all there is to understand.
What the Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats hate the most is that Hillary had the deck marked, and everyone in her pocket and she still lost the presidential election. They can't bring themselves to self reflect or blame the witch so they make fools of themselves calling Trump supporters names.
Mostly, They are trying to keep Bath House Barry out of the failed coup d'état conspiracy as much as possible, although he as just as guilty as any of his acolytes that claim Trump is. All they want is more playground bullying like this at least once a week just to keep the "collusion" BS in the headlines and give the talking heads at CNN and the rest of the LSM something to babble on and on about. This kind of crap is nothing but a public platform for them to harass Trump and everyone around him for the sake of perpetuating media fodder, EMPTY BLABBERING, about "Trump-Russia collusion" that never happened. And I would bet real money that Senate Republicans could easily make impeachment hearings far more about Obie than the Donald. So "no-impeachment" pug-face Pelosi is probably perfectly happy to just let these brainless House interrogations continue ad nauseum long past any rational point at all, just to keep the media buzzing about "official investigations" of "Trump crimes" rather than proceeding forward to the real story, which is OBAMA-Russian collusion (re the "dossier" etc.) and the high crimes and misdemeanors that BHB committed while he was POTUS, not just as a candidate during an election campaign and his eight years in office capped off by give Iran $150 Billion delivered at night in unmarked cargo planes..

 

[playtime]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

 

[OKTexas]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

The courts have consistently held that internal deliberations with a presidents inner circle are privileged. No luck is needed.

.

 

[Doc7505]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

Hope Hicks did not have to testify for 8 hours this last time. She appeared before the similar Committee before and testified for a previous 8 hours basically answering the same questions. Nadler called her to in order to smear her. Why was his referring to her as Mrs. Lewandowsky several times? He knows her name, He was attempting to disgrace her and couldn't make his point because she put him down. It just shows how pathetic and inane Nadler is. Indeed the media thinks it is okay. Look at the way the Democrats and the media treat other conservative women and black conservatives. Had the shoe been on the other foot, the media would have been outraged about it. Instead they ignored it and made excuses for Nadler:

Why didn’t Nadler’s treatment of Hope Hicks generate a media firestorm
Why didn't Nadler's treatment of Hope Hicks generate a media firestorm?
21 Jun 19 · Nadler called Hicks “Ms. Lewandowski” three times, before she finally objected. That’s not a slip, or a preoccupation. ... and he had called her Ms. Hicks previously. And he proceeded to call her by her correct name over the remaining 250+ pages of testimony. ... The great “defenders of the down-trodden” see all those people as a ...

 

[playtime]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

The courts have consistently held that internal deliberations with a presidents inner circle are privileged. No luck is needed.

.

not when it is within the scope of a 'crime'.... & the scope or threshold of an impeachable offense is different than in a court of law... say like ummmm... obstruction.

CAN DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE THIS ARGUMENT IN COURT?
Yes. The only judge ever to address the doctrine of testimonial immunity forcefully rejected it.

That 2008 ruling came in a dispute over a subpoena for testimony from Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said that “there is no judicial support whatsoever” for the notion that a president’s advisers have absolute immunity from testimony, and that adopting such a view would “would eviscerate Congress’ historical oversight function.”

The judge also said testimonial immunity seemed at odds with the reasoning in Clinton v. Jones, a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a president is not shielded from civil lawsuits unrelated to his official duties.

Explainer: Can Trump block ex-aide Hicks from talking to Congress by citing immunity? - Reuters

________________________________________________________________________

House Democrats are planning to file a lawsuit within days to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify on Capitol Hill — and they say Hope Hicks’ reluctant testimony Wednesday will help deliver them a crucial win in court.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Hicks’ blanket refusal to tell lawmakers about her tenure in the West Wing is the real-life illustration Democrats needed to show a judge just how extreme the White House’s blockade on witness testimony has become.


“It very much played into our hands,” Nadler said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office Thursday. “It’s one thing to tell a judge blanket immunity is not a right thing. It’s another thing when a judge can see what that means in actuality, and how absurd it is.”

Nadler said he is working with the House general counsel to draft the lawsuit against McGahn, a central witness for special counsel Robert Mueller. The New York Democrat said he’s confident that a win in the McGahn case would create a precedent that forces the White House to back off its resistance to Democrats’ investigations and permit other key Mueller witnesses, like Hicks, to talk to lawmakers.

“That court case is key to everything,” Nadler said. “[Hicks] will be forthcoming only under legal compulsion.”

White House lawyers intervened hundreds of times on Wednesday to claim that Hicks, a longtime confidante of Trump who served as White House communications director, had “absolute immunity” from talking to Congress. Though some Democrats were infuriated by Hicks’ refusal to answer even basic questions about her years working in the Trump White House, Nadler said he anticipated the stonewalling and that his decision to move forward with the interview was by design.

Nadler: Hope Hicks testimony is huge gift in legal battle with Trump

 

[OKTexas]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

The courts have consistently held that internal deliberations with a presidents inner circle are privileged. No luck is needed.

.

not when it is within the scope of a 'crime'.... & the scope or threshold of an impeachable offense is different than in a court of law... say like ummmm... obstruction.

CAN DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE THIS ARGUMENT IN COURT?
Yes. The only judge ever to address the doctrine of testimonial immunity forcefully rejected it.

That 2008 ruling came in a dispute over a subpoena for testimony from Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said that “there is no judicial support whatsoever” for the notion that a president’s advisers have absolute immunity from testimony, and that adopting such a view would “would eviscerate Congress’ historical oversight function.”

The judge also said testimonial immunity seemed at odds with the reasoning in Clinton v. Jones, a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a president is not shielded from civil lawsuits unrelated to his official duties.

Explainer: Can Trump block ex-aide Hicks from talking to Congress by citing immunity? - Reuters

________________________________________________________________________

House Democrats are planning to file a lawsuit within days to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify on Capitol Hill — and they say Hope Hicks’ reluctant testimony Wednesday will help deliver them a crucial win in court.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Hicks’ blanket refusal to tell lawmakers about her tenure in the West Wing is the real-life illustration Democrats needed to show a judge just how extreme the White House’s blockade on witness testimony has become.


“It very much played into our hands,” Nadler said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office Thursday. “It’s one thing to tell a judge blanket immunity is not a right thing. It’s another thing when a judge can see what that means in actuality, and how absurd it is.”

Nadler said he is working with the House general counsel to draft the lawsuit against McGahn, a central witness for special counsel Robert Mueller. The New York Democrat said he’s confident that a win in the McGahn case would create a precedent that forces the White House to back off its resistance to Democrats’ investigations and permit other key Mueller witnesses, like Hicks, to talk to lawmakers.

“That court case is key to everything,” Nadler said. “[Hicks] will be forthcoming only under legal compulsion.”

White House lawyers intervened hundreds of times on Wednesday to claim that Hicks, a longtime confidante of Trump who served as White House communications director, had “absolute immunity” from talking to Congress. Though some Democrats were infuriated by Hicks’ refusal to answer even basic questions about her years working in the Trump White House, Nadler said he anticipated the stonewalling and that his decision to move forward with the interview was by design.

Nadler: Hope Hicks testimony is huge gift in legal battle with Trump

Poor thing, don't know the difference between blanket testimonial immunity and executive privilege. Hicks testified about the campaign, once elected executive privilege kicks in. And by all accounts the WH lawyers only intervened 150 times, not hundreds of times as your fake news claims.

.

 

[playtime]

150 times she refused (thru her lawyers) to answer questions. the very idea that she has all inclusive immunity isn't a real legal tactic & it is going to be challenged.

good luck.

The courts have consistently held that internal deliberations with a presidents inner circle are privileged. No luck is needed.

.

not when it is within the scope of a 'crime'.... & the scope or threshold of an impeachable offense is different than in a court of law... say like ummmm... obstruction.

CAN DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE THIS ARGUMENT IN COURT?
Yes. The only judge ever to address the doctrine of testimonial immunity forcefully rejected it.

That 2008 ruling came in a dispute over a subpoena for testimony from Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said that “there is no judicial support whatsoever” for the notion that a president’s advisers have absolute immunity from testimony, and that adopting such a view would “would eviscerate Congress’ historical oversight function.”

The judge also said testimonial immunity seemed at odds with the reasoning in Clinton v. Jones, a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a president is not shielded from civil lawsuits unrelated to his official duties.

Explainer: Can Trump block ex-aide Hicks from talking to Congress by citing immunity? - Reuters

________________________________________________________________________

House Democrats are planning to file a lawsuit within days to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify on Capitol Hill — and they say Hope Hicks’ reluctant testimony Wednesday will help deliver them a crucial win in court.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Hicks’ blanket refusal to tell lawmakers about her tenure in the West Wing is the real-life illustration Democrats needed to show a judge just how extreme the White House’s blockade on witness testimony has become.


“It very much played into our hands,” Nadler said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office Thursday. “It’s one thing to tell a judge blanket immunity is not a right thing. It’s another thing when a judge can see what that means in actuality, and how absurd it is.”

Nadler said he is working with the House general counsel to draft the lawsuit against McGahn, a central witness for special counsel Robert Mueller. The New York Democrat said he’s confident that a win in the McGahn case would create a precedent that forces the White House to back off its resistance to Democrats’ investigations and permit other key Mueller witnesses, like Hicks, to talk to lawmakers.

“That court case is key to everything,” Nadler said. “[Hicks] will be forthcoming only under legal compulsion.”

White House lawyers intervened hundreds of times on Wednesday to claim that Hicks, a longtime confidante of Trump who served as White House communications director, had “absolute immunity” from talking to Congress. Though some Democrats were infuriated by Hicks’ refusal to answer even basic questions about her years working in the Trump White House, Nadler said he anticipated the stonewalling and that his decision to move forward with the interview was by design.

Nadler: Hope Hicks testimony is huge gift in legal battle with Trump

Poor thing, don't know the difference between blanket testimonial immunity and executive privilege. Hicks testified about the campaign, once elected executive privilege kicks in. And by all accounts the WH lawyers only intervened 150 times, not hundreds of times as your fake news claims.

.

uh- i only heard 150x... period. & the total immunity thing was tried b4 & the judge threw it out. the precedent is already there & it isn't supporting your side.

too bad, so sad, kitty cat.