DimWit Politics

The Hope Hicks hearing was more political charade

 Breaking News
  • NOT asking about citizenship is political The Trump administrations wants to ask if a person living in America is a citizen as part of the decennial census due to be conducted in 2020.  Democrats have responded...
  • So … who is doing the vetting? It would be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that President Trump’s administration has not had a more than average problem with its major appointments.  Sometimes they are controversial because...
  • Pelosi wins round one against Ocasio-Cortez Not since the introduction of female mud wrestling has the been a more entertaining battle between two ladies than the political pugilism currently occurring between the reigning champion of the...
  • Renegade Paul Ryan Slams Trump There’s an old axiom that states: “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.” Indeed there was nothing stranger than witnessing the interaction between President Trump and former Speaker Paul Ryan attempting to...
  • DECEPTION: Dems Use Obama Era Caged Photo in Attacking Trump Slimy swamp dwelling House Democrats were once again caught tweeting out another egregious hoax — in an attempt to push their investigation into “inhumane treatment” at the border by using...

The Hope Hicks hearing was more political charade

The Hope Hicks hearing was more political charade
June 24
15:53 2019

Following the reports on Hope Hicks’ closed-door hearing before Congressman Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee, I was reminded of the Henry Mancini theme song for the old movie “Charade.”  The first stanza of the lyrics seems particularly appropriate.

When we played our charade
We were like children posing
Playing at games, acting out names
Guessing the parts we played

Coming out of the hearing in which former White House Communications Director Hicks testified for several hours, one indignant Democrat after another proclaimed their frustration that she declined to answer all their questions.  It would have been a more honest response had the Democrats sung those lyrics.  Nadler’s hearing began as a charade with their first “witness,” Watergate figure John Dean – a witness who had not actually witnessed anything relevant.

Now they brought in Hicks, a witness who could not – or would not – testify to anything relating to her work in the White House.  She could – and did – answer all question involving her time at work for the Trump Organization, the campaign and during the transition period.  In fact, she had nothing new to say beyond what she had told Special Council Robert Mueller and what had already been described in detail in his Report to Attorney General William Barr.

They noted that Hicks declined to answer 155 questions – even refusing to state the locations of her office in the White House.  Well, duh!  Everyone of those questions was about her time at the White House.  The Democrats who asked all those questions knew very will that she would be inclined to decline.  They were not seeking information.  They were looking to create a talking point that would be uncritically amplified by their allies in the news media – and they got that.

The Democrats and the media gave the false impression that Hicks had refused to answer any questions.  The kinder Democrats accused Hicks of stonewalling.  The more common accusation from the less kind was obstruction of justice – and those accusations were leveled at President Trump, as well.

The hearing was a charade because the Democrats knew full well that Hicks would not be answering any question relating to her work at the White House.  The Trump administration was claiming a general immunity for those working in the White House.

Democrats claim – falsely – that there is no such general immunity and even claim that so-called executive privilege does not apply in Hicks’ case.  The fact is, we do not know.  Executive privilege and immunity from testifying have been successfully used by past presidents – and has been generally accepted as a presidential prerogative.

However, it has not been tested in the federal courts.  And that is where all this will wind up.  In the meantime, the political feud over the subject – with Republicans saying it is the President’s right and the Democrats saying it is not – is more political charade.  We would be well served to ignore the partisan conflict and wait to see what the courts decide.

In the meantime, White House officials will not be testifying about their time in the presidential mansion – and anything about which they do testify will already have been dealt with in the Mueller investigation and reflected in his Report.

Apparently, the fact that they are not likely to learn anything new during those hearings is not going to stop Nadler & Co. from proceeding with the charade.

So, there ‘tis,

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles

8 Comments

  1. pundit
    pundit June 25, 18:15

    a dog and pony show for a change

    Reply to this comment
  2. NavyJR
    NavyJR June 25, 18:17

    All these hearings in the House are nothing but political posturing and Nadler’s efforts at revenge against Trump for besting him in a business deal years ago; and for Hillary losing.

    Reply to this comment
    • radman414
      radman414 June 25, 18:56

      Sounds “spot on” to me, NavyJR! “No Nads” Nadler is a petty, pathetic example of Napoleon (short man’s) disease that’s exacerbated by his desperation and a chronic case of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

      Reply to this comment
    • AC
      AC June 25, 23:07

      Hillary didn’t legitimately lose. Efforts on the part of concerned Americans that have anything at all to do with Hillary are focused on preventing the next Democratic nominee from being robbed of her or his rightful place at the behest of the sane portion of the American people. And, according to polls that were taken literally days before the last presidential election, the sane portion of Americans make up roughly 75% of the population. Trump and the people who support him merely aren’t able to differentiate between playing smart and playing dirty–which is why Trump has been such a disaster as a leader of what has been, in effect, a banana republic (since he was egregiously allowed to take office after that farce of a so-called election): Trump (and the people who support him) don’t appear to have the wherewithal to understand that cheating to get a position of power and using that position of power in a sane and wise manner are not the same thing. I believe Hillary would have preferred to have lost the election fairly–nothing could have been worse than watching the person who cheated be solemnly sworn in. As someone who values the values of this country, nothing could have been worse than watching that fraud commit the greatest act of perjury of his wretched existence. If everything Trump said for his oath of office was not a speech act of perjury, Trump really doesn’t know what he’s doing or saying from moment to moment. Either he’s as corrupt as his record would make him appear, or he’s so deranged he has long since lost track of what is corrupt and what is appropriate presidential behavior. Melania Trump’s sleazy clothing is horribly appropriate–she decorates Trump’s presidency in the manner it deserves. Do you (or the author of the above article) have any rational grounds for objecting to the said hearings? I look forward to your answer. I would actually prefer to see a cogent answer from you. I like to try to believe that not all the people with your mentality should be placed in facilities where they can’t harm themselves or others. I fear, of course, my comments will be simply deleted by those whose egos are too sensitive, and whose minds are too weak, to withstand a healthy debate. It’s easier to silence people you can’t best on a verbal level by simply deleting what they say, isn’t it? Especially on a site like this–most of the denizens will accommodate whoever deletes any dissenting comment with their blind approbation and faith. I suppose that’s why a lot of sites like this exist. It’s a pity–we have a chance for an open forum, but I doubt you’re wise enough to take the opportunity to talk about the issues (as opposed to merely shouting you’re right because you chose to believe that you’re right, and the proof of this lies in the power of someone with your mentality to delete anything with which you disagree).

      Reply to this comment
      • Bill P.
        Bill P. June 27, 19:16

        Blah blah blah

        Reply to this comment
      • DPiper
        DPiper July 14, 17:21

        Hillary did lose fairly, even though she, and you, have failed to concede. It’s called the Electoral College. It was established at the beginning of our Republic by our Constitution. People like you who do not want to live in America with our Constitution and our laws should go live somewhere else.

        Reply to this comment
  3. AC
    AC June 25, 22:50

    If, as the author of this article appears to believe, the Democrats’ plan was to make an issue out of Hicks’ unwillingness to answer what were allegedly mundane questions, why would Hicks play right into the Democrats’ hand, so to speak, by refusing to answer basic questions that were supposedly noncontroversial and commonplace? This is an exercise in basic logical thought. I would be truly, deeply relieved if the author of this article exercised skills in basic logic and rhetoric. Otherwise, I feel an enormous amount of responsibility to work to insure that people of such irrational mentalities cease to have a precariously large hand in creating national policy.

    Reply to this comment
  4. Bob Gummz
    Bob Gummz June 26, 17:28

    Come on. The Democrats don’t even bring up Hillary Clinton. Why are we continuing to do so? Even Trump’s kickoff speech brought up her name again and again. She isn’t even running!! Democrats are smarter than many of us think. It’s time to stop pretending they are dolts and that all the media support them. Don’t conservatives have ANY media outlets?? And if not, then why not?

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

God, this country has become a divided morass of hatred and divisiveness unlike any since...

Unrelated but sorely needed! Their must be a concerted effort made known to all...

Why does they left always play the "race card" when race has absolutely NOTHING to...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.