Hope Hicks testifies: It went about as you expected

The White House’s ongoing campaign to render any and all oversight efforts by House Democrats a dead letter continued apace with a full-blown fiasco involving the testimony of Hope Hicks, a former communications director to President Trump.

Please note the use of the word “former” there, because it’s vital.

[...]

During a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, a White House attorney and Justice Department lawyer kept Hope Hicks from answering questions about her tenure in the West Wing, claiming immunity for the executive branch — although Hicks is a private citizen.

Democrats immediately countered that the immunity assertion was made up, accusing the White House of trying to stonewall their investigations.

[...]

But Democrats made little to no headway with Hicks. As The Post reports, the White House’s assertion of immunity “even extended to simple questions about where her office was located, according to lawmakers in the room.”

  WaPo

So what did they do about it?

Democrats had hoped to press Hicks on matters related to Trump’s alleged efforts to obstruct the Russian election interference investigation, including Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey and his anger at former attorney general Jeff Sessions, a longtime target of Trump’s rage over his refusal to protect him from the investigation.

They're a hopeful bunch. But what did they DO about it?

And why were attorneys for the White House and DOJ there in the first place? Hicks isn't employed in the executive office any more.

The White House also asserted immunity when Trump leaned on former White House counsel Donald McGahn — who witnessed extensive potential criminal obstruction of justice — to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify. McGahn agreed.

Democrats are now set to go to court to force McGahn’s testimony. And they are likely to do the same with Hicks. But here’s the question: How long will that take?

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told me that Democrats might have a strong case on both McGahn and Hicks, because both “are no longer in the executive branch."

“But it’s going to take months, if not a year or two, to get a conclusive judicial resolution, especially if that includes going all the way to the Supreme Court,” Vladeck added.

And you can bet your bottom dollar it will.

And this underscores what a big risk Democrats are taking in counting on conventional oversight, as opposed to an impeachment inquiry, to hold Trump accountable.

[...]

As Michael Stern, a former counsel to the House of Representatives, has argued, although Democrats currently have a good case to compel testimony, it would be even more “absurd” for the courts to rule that former White House aides “are somehow immune from testifying in an impeachment proceeding as fact witnesses to alleged high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What’s more, there’s at least a decent chance the courts would act more quickly in an impeachment inquiry context. “When information is sought solely for oversight purposes, it is difficult to convince judges that there is urgency in securing evidence,” Stern notes. “By contrast, there is a clear urgency to resolve impeachment matters.”

[...]

Stonewalling such as Hicks’s may build more pressure on Democrats to initiate an inquiry. Even moderates, such as Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), now support one, as do nearly 70 House members. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appears adamantly opposed.

She needs to be overruled and sent home.

“What I witnessed today was obstruction of justice in action," Rep Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told me in a statement from his office. “This highlights the extreme challenge of moving forward with traditional oversight in the face of extraordinary obstruction.”

Lieu added that Democrats should “immediately litigate a a contempt action against Hicks,” and go straight into court.

Democrats should immediately begin impeachment hearings.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE: