LincolnDuncan
Thread hijacker
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2015
- Posts
- 6,648
She didn't say shit. She just craved TV time.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
House Democrats erupted Wednesday at the White House’s repeated interference in their nearly eight-hour interview with Hope Hicks, a longtime confidante of President Donald Trump who was a central witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation.
Several House Judiciary Committee members exiting the closed-door interview said a White House lawyer present for her testimony repeatedly claimed Hicks had blanket immunity from discussing her tenure as a top aide to the president, including during the presidential transition period. Democrats said she wouldn’t answer questions as basic as where she sat in the West Wing or whether she told the truth to Mueller.
“We’re watching obstruction of justice in action,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.).
“It’s a farce,” added Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who said Hicks at one point tried to answer a question about an episode involving former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski only to be cut off by the White House counsel.
Hicks’ appearance was the first time a current or former Trump administration official testified before the Judiciary Committee as part of its obstruction of justice investigation, which began in March. But it’s unclear whether her testimony — which did not touch on her White House service — will advance the panel’s probe, which focuses on Trump’s conduct as president.
“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.”