Mum is the Word from the White House: Hope Hicks Tells House Intelligence Committee

"Arrogant and Smug" Hope Hicks and "Alternative Facts" Kellyanne Conway   

(Two of a kind and both awful)

Major Update to the following story which follows - this from Mediaite here. 

As part of Hope Hicks House Intelligence Committee testimony this is added to the story that follows below – all I can say is wow…!

Hicks testified before the House Committee behind closed doors and even though there were a bunch of questions she would not answer, there was one thing she got a bit candid about.

The Background: Trump is, to put it incredibly charitably, prone to making untrue statements, and per The New York Times, Hicks conceded she’s had to tell the occasional lie too.”

Specifically as the White House communications director and in blunt terms she said that her work for President Trump, who has a reputation for exaggerations and outright falsehoods, had occasionally required her to tell white lies.

But after extended consultation with her lawyers, she insisted that she had not lied about matters material to the investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible links to Trump associates. However, she further declined to answer questions about her time in the White House and concerning the transition period. 

I note: After that confession, it is logical to believe and trust nothing Hicks says in the future ... in short, she cannot and pick and choose which lies to pass off on the public merely a white lie. She must be removed from office, but Trump, I guess is not prone to do that.

============================================================

The original post from here:

Hope Hicks draws line on Russia testimony

Story and sub-heading from Politico: Hicks, a close Trump confidant, may have escalated tensions between the House Intelligence Committee and the West Wing over interview ground rules.

White House communications director Hope Hicks declined to answer many questions during her appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, therefore, escalating a standoff over witness ground rules between the West Wing and House members investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Hicks told the committee that she was acting on instructions from the White House when she refused to answer questions covering her time on the post-election transition and in the West Wing. 

Hicks spent nearly five hours in a secure committee meeting room. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said the panel established parameters for Hicks’ testimony within the first 20 minutes of her interview and then spent the ensuing hours quizzing her about Trump’s campaign, about which she answered all questions posed to her.

The issue of interview ground rules has also bedeviled the panel’s recent meetings with former Trump political strategist Steve Bannon. Even Republican committee members have discussed holding him in contempt for his refusal to answer many of their questions — apparently at the direction of White House lawyers. Apparently, Bannon would only respond to queries that had been “literally scripted for him by the White House.” 

However (as suspected), the White House rejected that charge, saying they are properly shielding privileged conversations between the president and his senior aides. But lawmakers of both parties on the panel have expressed growing frustration about that position.

Here we are now: Will the House follow through with threats to hold Bannon in contempt with a subpoena? Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) is leading the intelligence committee’s Russia probe and he said the question would require guidance from House leaders — but Conaway said he has not yet spoken to Speaker Paul Ryan about the prospect of a contempt citation. Ryan’s office has so far declined to weigh in on the prospect.

My insert and final 2 cents: If Ryan and others refuse a subpoena then they are just as guilty as those who need to be questioned about any of their possible guilt. No one is above the law – the foundation of our judicial system – keep that in mind. 

All witnesses who refuse to answer question to get to the bottom of this, I say, make they testify, closed doors or open and if needed under Congressional subpoena – we need the truth whatever it takes. Executive privilege is fully understood, but not to hide crimes. 

Good information from this law site: 

Like other constitutional powers, executive privilege is subject to a balancing test. Just as presidents and their advisers have needs of confidentiality, Congress must have access to executive branch information to carry out its constitutionally based investigative function. Therefore, any claim of executive privilege must be weighed against Congress’s legitimate need for information to carry out its own constitutional role. 

The power of inquiry is not absolute, whether it is wielded by Congress or by prosecutors. 

In our constitutional system, the burden is on the executive to prove that it has the right to withhold information and not on Congress to prove that it has the right to investigate. 

Executive privilege should be reserved for the most compelling reasons. It is not a power that should be routinely used to deny those with compulsory power the right of access to information. Short of a strong showing by the executive branch of a need to withhold information, Congress’s right to investigate must be upheld.  

To enable the executive to withhold whatever information it wants would be to establish a bad constitutional precedent – one that would erode a core function of the legislative branch and upset the delicate balance of powers in our system. Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. 

BTW: This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. 

Many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings. 

Executive privilege is an implied presidential power that is recognized by the courts, most famously and unanimous decision (9-0) in the U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Supreme Court case. 

Not all presidents have used this power for the public good, but instead some have claimed executive privilege to try to conceal wrongdoing or politically embarrassing information.  

I say invoke it Mr. Trump and then challenge it and take to the USSC and let’s settle this case once and for all. 

But, you and this all GOP-run congress have to stop preaching to us of your duty and honor to serve us, stop being a hypocrite then pull this crap. 

So we face a constitutional crisis in the making – maybe – if so, then the cause is Donald J. Trump. 

Stay tuned…. The high court may have to rule on this just like in Nixon. 

Thanks for stopping by.