She (Hope Hicks) even refused to identify the location of her West Wing Office to the House!

[Nevermypresident]

But if the hearing had the potential to kick-start Democrats’ stalled investigations into Mr. Trump, it quickly veered toward an increasingly familiar outcome. Under the direction of White House and her private lawyers, Ms. Hicks declined to answer questions about her time working in the administration and on the presidential transition, citing instructions from the president that she was “absolutely immune” from answering, lawmakers from both parties said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hope-hicks-declines-to-answer-lawmakers-questions-on-transition-white-house/ar-AAD6JB9


Same old, same old....

[Doodley]

1. What is she and Trump trying to hide? An affair?

[woodsprite]

2. I'm surprised anybody thought she would do anything different. nt

[msongs]

3. so what will dems do about it. nt

[area51]

5. +1 n/t

[Docreed2003]

10. What do I really think Dems will do?

I'd like to give you all the ways they're going to push back with force against this nonsense, but I'm afraid they aren't going to do a damn thing of substance.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. Jack-dick... nt

[jberryhill]

15. Not a God-damned thing

I'm beginning to believe that they get such positive poll numbers for complaining about Trump, that they have become reluctant to get rid of him.

[leftstreet]

16. ...and funding

(And to anyone worried I'm 'bashing' Democrats - no. That's just the reality of politics)

Sadly for the rest of us, Trump is good for some things

[LanternWaste]

18. Nothing as per tic-tac-toe experts.

And of course, tic-tac-toe players both see into and have a deep insight to all the potential moves being discussed.

I certainly place as much faith in their simplistic prognostications and one-word prophecies as I do the south-central regional champion of of the Candyland convention.





"so what will dems do about it."
Is that an "us" or "them" qualifier?

[Nevermypresident]

7. Noticing how they are now thinking about bringing in 2nd tier trumpers as witnesses

and just experts to discuss the "implications" of trump's actions.

Below is from same article:


"Some Democrats on the committee have begun arguing that they should reach down the witness list to Trump associates who may figure less prominently in Mr. Mueller’s report but whom the White House cannot shield from testifying because they never worked in the administration.

Democrats are expected to cover the same topics at a public hearing on Thursday before the Judiciary Committee. They have called legal experts from both parties to discuss the implications of the hush payments and Mr. Trump’s boast last week to ABC that “I’d take it” if Russia again offered his campaign assistance in 2020."


(I am interested what the ratings will be for the Thurs. "experts" hearings.) I do not believe they will get the attention of the nation like Impeachment hearings would.

[Nevermypresident]

11. +1

[Docreed2003]

8. Yep...I think you're right

[Takket]

6. Enough of this fucking shit...

Hold her in contempt and toss her in a cell. There are limited things under the branch of executive privilege but that does not mean the president and everyone in the executive branch never has to answer questions about anything.

[Nevermypresident]

14. I hear you Chin music.

[rsdsharp]

17. Well, in fairness to Ms. Hicks, you'd be reluctant to identify your work station, too,

if had been underneath the Resolute desk.