John Dean explains the big mistake Hope Hicks made by stonewalling Congress

[ehrnst]

“Privilege is not being asserted here. Instead, the White House says that Hicks has absolute immunity regarding the time that she spent at 1600 Pennsylvania. Does absolute immunity even exist? And if so, can you explain to me the difference between the two?” CNN host Brooke Baldwin asked Dean.

“There is no such thing as absolute immunity for anybody to appear before Congress,” he replied. “When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Nixon case, they absolutely said that there was no absolute privilege, rather it had to be weighed in each instance as to the needs for those who are asking for the information and the person who’s resisting giving the information.”

“Absolute privileges are very rare in the law. And they’re always this balancing process. This total immunity is part of the so-called executive theory of unitary executive theory that will theoretically make the person immune to Congress. And that just doesn’t play in our system.”
.........................................................

“But the fact that she went to Mueller — the grand jury has really established its ability to pierce presidential privilege. That happened in U.S. versus Nixon. But the court spoke in broader terms generally. While we’ve never had a case directly resolving the powers of Congress versus the power of the president over information, I think that’s where Trump wants to go. He wants to stall as long as he can. There’s nothing — this is just clearly, as many members of Congress are calling it, a cover up we’re watching.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/john-dean-explains-the-big-mistake-hope-hicks-made-by-stonewalling-congress/

[StarfishSaver]

1. It's starting to look more and more like Nadler set a trap and she fell right into it

Interesting

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. It's not falling into a trap if their tactic is delay

Sure it looks like Hope will eventually lose in court. Same is true about most if not all of the Trump Administration delaying tactics. But if their choice was to lose now or lose later, they again kicked that day of reckoning further down the road.

[empedocles]

4. More delay . . . and more evidence of _________, obstruction.

[mitch96]

33. "More delay"

More time to collect evidence of obstruction. Spring the trap and convict tRumps gang close to the election.. Make them look corrupt to the electorate. Prove they are crooks...
That's my take...ymmv
m

[StarfishSaver]

6. But this didn't delay things. She helped them speed it up.

Had she refused to appear at all or had the committee insisted she appears in public and she refused and then gone to court, the court would probably send it back and tell them to try to settle it between themselves. And weeks later, they'd be right back where they were two days ago.

This way, she made it clear that she and the Trump team aren't cooperating and there's nothing else the House can do to get her to testify but go to court. If they go to court now, the court will probably enforce the subpoena without requiring the committee to negotiate with her any further.

So while it it may seem like she's stalling, she actually helped the committee clear the way to get a quicker resolution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. At the least it's a delay over giving full testimony now, but you may have a point

We are left second guessing how courts will react to scenario A vs scenario B etc. Reminds me of an earlier exchange we had in which you questioned whether a formal Congressional Impeachment inquiry would give the courts better grounds to force quicker administration compliance with congressional subpoenas..

[StarfishSaver]

11. Yes, I'm guessing since I can't predict the future

But the courts have made it very clear that the House must do everything it can to negotiate testimony before going to court and there's solid precedent for courts refusing to enforce subpoenas until that's done, so my guess on this is pretty solid.

[PRETZEL]

13. And I would also assume that in order to present their case

they would need an official transcript of the hearing.

And quite honestly, I don't know how quickly those can be turned around.

[MFGsunny]

22. Exactly. Plus transcript will be available 48 hrs from yesterday's testimony by Hicks.

Of course, transcript is needed for committee's legal filing against Hicks and their LEGAL ABSURDITY claim of absolute immunity ANYWHERE in law other than in the demented unitary theory of the executive a la Stephen Miller, DIS-Barr et al.

[ehrnst]

19. Ted Lieu:

Link to tweet

[aggiesal]

32. Love this image

[ehrnst]

34. I imagine Susan McDougall's name will be invoked when Ms Hicks

is compelled by the court to comply with a subpoena, and that executive privilege does not apply.

[StarfishSaver]

38. McDougall wasn't jailed by Republicans" and wasn't jailed for defying a congressional subpoena

She was ordered to jail by a federal judge after refusing to testify before a grand jury.

And this wasn't done immediately, but pursuant to a process.

In other words, this meme sounds good, but it's both wrong and irrelevant

[PRETZEL]

39. True,

but I think what may bring about some points is that the Grand Jury she refused to testify to was a Ken Starr grand jury,

And Ken Starr was no independant counsel, except in name only.

[StarfishSaver]

40. It's still irrelevant to this situation

[Grasswire2]

41. Not if the discussion is about the relative treatment of Hicks to McDougal.

McDougal was treated horribly. Shackled hand and foot, extensive time in solitary confinement, chained to a toilet, transferred round and round the prison system as punishment...

Hicks wasn't even sworn in today, and treated like a princess.

[StarfishSaver]

43. The only reason anyone's "discussing the relative treatment" of Hicks and Mcdougall is

because someone posted a meme comparing the two completely unanalagous situations. The comparison is ridiculous.

McDougall wasn't jailed by the "Republicans" as the meme claims. She was jailed by a federal judge. She wasn't charged with refusing to testify before Congress, but for refusing to testify before a grand jury and violating a court order that she do so. She was jailed after being convicted of contempt of court which has very different procedures and penalties than contempt of Congress.

McDougall wasn't summarily thrown in jail the same day she refused to testify, but was first given several opportunities to testify (something some people here have a problem with when done with Congressional witnesses) and then charged with contempt and sentenced to jail by judge pursuant to law.

If you want to compare Hicks to someone to try to make a point, you should compare her to how other people have been treated the day they appeared before Congress and refused to answer all of their questions. If you can find anyone who was thrown into jail on that very day by a judge with no due process, you may have an apt comparison.

Otherwise comparing Hicks to McDougall makes no more sense than comparing her to the New York Times' Judy Miller or anyone else charged with and jailed for any other civil or criminal violation completely unrelated to refusing to testify before Congress.

[PRETZEL]

12. I tend to agree that this does help speed up the process

hopefully they'll get an expedited ruling and order issued for compliance,

I think this and possibly Judge Mehta's ruling from last week or so concerning the documents from that accounting firm does add strength to the House's case.

[qazplm135]

16. You're ascribing logic

to an illogical regime that thinks very short-term.

It pushed things off another day and that's all Trump cares about or can focus on.

[StarfishSaver]

20. This has nothing to do with the "regime"

Her stunt yesterday took the timetable for her testimony away from her and the Trump team - and did so earlier than if she hadn't shown up yesterday. Now it's totally in the control of the courts.

[qazplm135]

21. Sure

But they aren't thinking like that. They are thinking short term.

[empedocles]

37. Thank you

[pangaia]

36. None of them will lose, now or later in court.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I would have been more impressed if the lawsuit was filed TODAY.

[ehrnst]

9. Yes, that would indicate that they have a time machine.

Apparently you haven't ever filed a lawsuit.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that they set a trap,

and then defend them because they weren't proactive about the legal steps they were going to take once that trap was sprung.

And, yes, I do know something about lawsuits. They are formulaic. Few lawyers ever bother to operate in the "novel" arena of the law. They just recycle the same forms.

Seriously, PROACTIVE is not something the Democratic legislature is known for, and it should be. IF they set a trap, it would have sent a hell of a statement if they were ready with the legal papers. The message would be clear: Don't drag your heels because we aren't going to help you run out the clock. We'll be ready with the next move.

[ehrnst]

18. I think you are getting confused as to who you are replying to...

I didn't say it was a trap.

However, Ted Lieu knows more about this than either you or I.

Link to tweet

[empedocles]

3. 'ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE' sounds a bit like a mandate from that renown legal scholar . . .

. . . traitortrump.

[watoos]

7. Trump doesn't give a rat's ass

If Hope loses in the courts as long as it happens after the election. If he loses the election he won’t accept the results.

[Turin_C3PO]

31. It doesn't matter if he accepts the results.

When a new president takes the oath in Jan 2021, the Secret Service, US Marshalls, and the Military all become loyal to the new President. He WILL leave when required, even if it’s in chains.

[duforsure]

8. She's screwed herself

Believing trump has absolute power to do this, and she not only will deeply regret doing this, but it will eventually caused her legal issues to worsen , and possibly have her serving time. Trump will find out soon he is not above the rule of law, or others involved with him committing crimes , or knowing about him committing crimes will be able to escape their own choices,and actions. Trump will claim he had no part in her recent stalling.

[FakeNoose]

35. I can't see what HH stands to gain from this

If she wasn't guilty of obstruction before, she certainly is now. She already cooperated with Mueller a year ago, what's the point of stonewalling now? They can't possibly think she took part in the original collusion/treason, but she's caught in the obstruction web now.

[Firestorm49]

15. Why Republicans don't question what they're hiding is beyond comprehension.

[ooky]

24. Getting to the truth is not the Republican's objective.

It's painfully clear they don't want to be seen as anti-Trump to their voters. They are not motivated by doing what is right. They are only motivated by being re-elected.

[ehrnst]

17. Ted Lieu:

Link to tweet

[Vegas Roller]

23. John Dean is amazing

I like his analyses.

[BlueIdaho]

25. Get this to a court NOW.

Charge her with contempt and fast track the case to court. I’m sick of this administration claiming “divine right of kings.” We need to break their backs NOW.

[ehrnst]

26. I can't imagine that they are delaying anything.

Filing isn't instantaneous and doesn't give you an instantaneous hearing.

Why do you think that they wouldn't be right on this?

[watoos]

27. Impeachment hearings will speed it up

Of course Trump is delaying everything, he will appeal everything to the SC.

[ehrnst]

28. Issuing a contempt charge against Hicks has nothing to do with impeaching POTUS.

Read what I responded to....

[StarfishSaver]

29. This isn't a fact and saying it repeatedly won't transform it into one

[Marcuse]

30. Hope Hicks is no Susan McDougal. She'll sing like a canary and squeal like a rat.

[lamp_shade]

42. Kick for visibility.