EDITOR'S BRIEF. Russia probe - Hicks May Be a Bigger Deal Than Bannon- By Josh Marshall
EDITOR'S BRIEF Russia probe 01.16.18. 12:02 pm
Hicks May Be a Bigger Deal Than Bannon
Two major White House figures are now scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill this week or soon after: Steve Bannon and Hope Hicks. Bannon is set to testify today; Hicks later this week or possibly early next week. Given his centrality to the campaign and the fact that he’s now cut off and seems to have nothing to lose, Bannon may seem like the more consequential testimony. But that’s probably wrong.
Bannon is showy and makes good copy. But he always seemed at an odd remove from the Russia shenanigans. Going back to the first months of the administration he showily volunteered to reporters that he’d never been drawn into it and had not even retained a lawyer. He has now. But that seems specifically tied to this congressional testimony. Everyone needs a lawyer in those cases. In the countless published reports we’ve seen over the last year about new Russia revelations, it’s striking how infrequently he turns out to be the guy in the room.
If you look at the things Bannon said in the Wolff book that got him in trouble they sound explosive. They are explosive. But they’re largely what he thinks happened or his reactions to publicly known events. He thought Don Jr.’s role convening that Trump Tower meeting might have bordered on treasonous. He had no doubt that Jr. marched the Russian lawyer upstairs to meet Trump. But he didn’t see it happen. These aren’t facts. They’re impressions and educated guesses — indeed, stated as such. They’re important educated guesses because Bannon spent more than a year as one of Trump’s closest advisors. But still, they’re not facts.
Even Bannon’s suggestion that the case will all come down to money-laundering is more a logical surmise based on what we all know. Bannon likely knows more from being on the inside. But again I suspect it’s more atmospheric knowledge.
Hicks is a very different figure. We’ve scarcely heard her even speak in public. I can’t think of one case in which I’ve heard her voice on national television, though I’m sure there have been cases. My point is that she has a very low public profile for someone who has been so close to the President for some two years. (She worked for Ivanka’s company before moving to Trump’s campaign.) At least on the obstruction if not the Russia front she was right there at the center of the action on numerous occasions. She was with the President on that addled and agitated Bedminster Weekend when Trump decided to fire James Comey and was at that notorious tarmac delay where the same appears to have been discussed. She was also there when the President made the consequential decision to personally dictate an inaccurate press statement about Don Jr.’s June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower.
These are only a couple examples. There are more. The point is that while it is nonsense to claim Bannon wasn’t a major figure in the campaign and the White House he doesn’t seem to have been in that small handful of people who were with Trump at almost every moment and likely saw and often participated in the various incriminating acts or discussions. By every account, Hicks was and is one of those people. That makes her testimony, both before Congress and the Special Counsel’s office, very important.
By JOSH MARSHALL
###
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/hicks-may-be-a-bigger-deal-than-bannon
= new reply since forum marked as read
