Hope Hicks' latest obstruction just gave the Democrats a major weapon: report

[ehrnst]

“Perhaps surprisingly, there’s no controlling legal authority defining the breadth of what aides can testify to,” Carlson wrote. “With all its limitations — in private, surrounded by lawyers, with a dry transcript to come days later — Hicks’ appearance gave Democrats, with no time to waste, a promising case to take to court to challenge the White House’s definition of immunity.”

Hicks refused to answer even the most basic questions about her service in the White House, which ended early last year, and House Democrats could use that to challenge her claims to immunity.

“Even under the broadest interpretation, immunity doesn’t extend to where you sit at work,” Carlson wrote. “(House Judiciary chairman Jerry) Nadler predicted after Hicks left, ‘We will destroy them in court.'”


“Her stilettos clicking down the marble halls of the Rayburn Building was the sound of the stone wall cracking,” she added, “from the inside out.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/hope-hicks-latest-obstruction-just-gave-the-democrats-a-major-weapon-report/

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. I see the frustration with people who say they should have demanded public hearings

Wherein she would have done the same thing, of course.

From this point forward I am in favor of jailing all of them, but I dont know if that is possible even though if they were dems they would all be in jail by now.

[guillaumeb]

3. True, but public hearings would allow people to see the obstruction.

And in a visually oriented society, that is vital.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. It would also have provided a place for the Repukes to vociferously express their outrage,

not only about Hicks' testimony, but the Mueller investigation as a whole. The end result would have been the same -- Hope Hicks refusing to answer any questions -- but it would have been a win for the GOP.

[guillaumeb]

12. We disagree.

The Watergate hearings turned public opinion against Nixon.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. True. The Republicans were behind Nixon 100% until public opinion turned.

Trump, however, has raised an additional barrier to the process. Whereas Nixon asserted executive privilege -- especially concerning the tapes -- he didn't try to make up a whole new theory of law in which he had absolute control over whether someone who had interacted with him could testify. That is so far beyond executive privilege that it has to be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional.

That said, Hope Hicks' case will be one of first impression for the District Court. As such, the committee will want to have a transcript that is "clean," where the issue is clearly defined. The transcript will show that Hicks was asked 150 questions to which her attorneys (all five of them) objected on the grounds of "absolute immunity." Had the Republicans had the opportunity to showboat, the transcript would be a mishmash of garbage unrelated to the matter at hand -- whether the Mueller investigation was warranted, the Dems are just duplicating his work, how dare the Dems attack this poor, defenseless girl, etc. -- that would serve only to slow down the judicial process.

In the end, Fat Donnie will fight the subpoena all the way to the SCOTUS, where he has just appointed a justice (Kavanaugh) who has stated a sitting president can't even be investigated. For that argument to be overcome, the lower courts are going to have to have a strong record to support their decisions to find "absolute immunity" unconstitutional. The closed hearing accomplished that purpose. Once executive immunity has been eliminated, the committee can re-subpoena Hicks for an open hearing where she will have to answer the 150 questions previously left unanswered.

[guillaumeb]

16. Agreed.

And FOX did not exist in 1974. At that time, the US corporate media was not as controlled by the rich.

[Gothmog]

2. There are no true absolute immunity and so the Democrats should prevail in court

[jayschool2013]

4. Here's the piece that RawStory re-wrote

Just in case you want to give credit to the original reporting.

[GentryDixon]

6. That's why I steer clear of Raw Story.

They rarely give credit to the original reporter. You must look for it when they do.

[jayschool2013]

7. It's a profitable business model, for sure

Although they have hired David Cay Johnston to do some original investigative work, by and large RawStory's business model is to hire a young journalism grad and train them to re-write work from other publications. Their costs for reporting are simply subscribing to the various journalistic media from which they take the information. They usually credit it, but the credit is not always easy to find.

[pnwmom]

8. They both gave credit to the original reporter and provided a link. Unfortunately,

it's behind a paywall.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Can we get that weapon to someone who will use it?

[ehrnst]

14. You don't think Pelosi will? Why? (nt)

[mopinko]

10. i think that was the plan, and i think they picked hicks on purpose.

i mean, i would have chosen her if i wanted someone who would push his last button.
the judge will consider the fact that there were negotiations, and concessions, and they still stonewalled.

[Lucinda]

13. Yep!

[duforsure]

11. Hope hicks will regret what she did yesterday

And when she realizes it she be facing very serious charges and possible prison time.

[smirkymonkey]

18. I just feel gleeful when I think of that smug, smirking, self-satisfied pretty mug behind

bars. In an orange jumpsuit instead of designer dresses and stiletto pumps. Maybe she will get lucky and get a cell right next to Ivanka so they can share beauty tips.

[UTUSN]

17. K&R