House Judiciary Committee releases Hicks transcript

[demmiblue]

Source: The Hill

The House Judiciary Committee has released a transcript of a closed-door interview with former Trump aide Hope Hicks.

Hicks interviewed privately with the panel for nearly eight hours on Wednesday as part of its sweeping investigation into President Trump and his associates. She was compelled to testify under subpoena.

The transcript stretches 273 pages long.

DEVELOPING

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/449627-house-judiciary-committee-releases-hicks-transcript

---

Link to tweet

Hope Hicks refused to answer 155 questions from Dems during House testimony

The White House directed Hope Hicks to refuse to answer 155 questions from House Democrats about her time in President Donald Trump's West Wing, according to a transcript of her remarks released Thursday.

The transcript underscores the extent to which the White House asserted that Hicks has "absolute immunity" from talking to lawmakers, who are investigating evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

During Wednesday's closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Hicks refused to answer repeated questions about the president's actions, her conversations with him and her discussions even with officials outside the White House, per the transcript. But she also refused to answer basic questions such as where her desk was located in the White House.

Democrats were livid Wednesday about her stonewalling but hoped to glean information about her time on the Trump campaign in 2016, when the claims of immunity did not apply. Hicks testified for more than eight hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/hope-hicks-refused-questions-house-testimony-1374240?utm_sourcedlvr.it&utm_mediumtwitter

Link to tweet

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Watch

[blaze]

2. direct link to transcript (pdf)

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/HJU170550%20Hicks%20interview.pdf

[obamanut2012]

3. There is literally no such thing as absolute immunity

[Brainfodder]

6. Absolute immunity / Mr. Cip's letter, this is dark comedy gold.

I am gonna assert some really messed up BS if I ever need to stall ANYTHING in the future.

Gonna power blast them yuge brained with the Mitch rule!

[jayschool2013]

4. I just read the first 25 pages

It's maddening. Here's a fun snippet:

Chairman Nadler. In other words, you are asserting absolute
immunity that she cannot testify as to any knowledge of anything
that occurred after the President was inaugurated?

Mr. Purpura. During her time as adviser to the President she
cannot be --

Chairman Nadler. She cannot refer to anything -- your
contention is that as a result of absolute immunity she cannot
state anything about her knowledge of anything during the period
of time in which she was employed in the White House?

Mr. Purpura. For the purpose of this hearing, yes.

Chairman Nadler. Okay. When Mr. Lewandowski visited the
White House on June 19th, 2017, he was not an employee of the
White House or the administration, correct?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. That's a matter of public knowledge. It
has nothing to do with whether she was a member -- a White House
staff person or not. She would know that in any event, so it
should not be covered by this.

Mr. Purpura. Under the terms of the absolute immunity
described in Mr. Cipollone's letter, she may not speak about
anything that occurred during the time of her employment in the
White House as a close adviser to the President.

[jayschool2013]

5. More obstruction/fascist comedy gold

Chairman Nadler. Did a war break out between Israel and
Egypt during that time period?

Mr. Purpura. Same objection.

Chairman Nadler. Same objection.
Well, I'll ask these questions for the record so you can
object for the record.
Do you recall if you knew why Mr. Lewandowski was at the
White House that day?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Were you present for any portion of that
meeting?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Do you know if anyone else was present for
any portions of that meeting?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Have you discussed that meeting with
anyone -- do you know if anyone else was present for any portion
of that meeting?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Have you discussed that meeting with anyone
outside of the White House?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Well, that could happen after she left the
White House.
Have you discussed that meeting with anyone outside of the
White House?

Mr. Purpura. Objection to the extent that it did not occur
during her time as an official -- close adviser to the President.

[Brainfodder]

7. How much stonewalling does it take to wake up these fools?

No transparency whatsoever can't stand .

[a kennedy]

8. Holy shit....Hope Hicks had FIVE attorneys with her??????

WTF????? FIVE ????? Ooooooops. She had Six Attorney........my bad.

[forgotmylogin]

9. Isn't "immunity" actually a misnomer?

Witnesses are given immunity so they will testify without fear of being prosecuted for what they say.

Saying she's "immune" to testimony is like when we used to yell "FORCE FIELD" during games of tag in the schoolyard so the kid who was it couldn't tag you. Totally bogus maneuver.

She's pleading the fifth is what she's doing, but she's not for herself, she's protecting Trump. That's not immunity at all. Trump knows who pleads the fifth so they're trying to call it something different.

It's just as bullshit as when Sessions wouldn't answer questions claiming "executive privilege" by proxy - in case the president decided to retroactively claim privilege in the future somehow.