“Pervy” House democrats sexually harass Hope Hicks

Loading

 

Hope Hicks spent yesterday being abused and harassed by Jerry Nadler and his gang of misogynist perverts. Three times Nadler referred to Hope Hicks as “Ms. Lewandowski”

Nadler “apologized”, saying he was “preoccupied.” By what, we do not know. Personally, I think it was quite intentional and misogynistic. Others have suggested that Nadler is suffering from diminished faculties. It was sexual harassment:



The perverted democrats, irritated by Hicks’ refusal to answer questions about the White House, then turned to another issue- Hicks’ love life. Devin Nunes:

“Nobody quite understood why she was back in the U.S. Capitol yesterday doing essentially another deposition,” the California Republican told Fox News on Thursday, referring to how Hicks has already done interviews with Mueller and congressional panels.

“My sources that were inside and did the interviewing said it was quite embarrassing to watch the Democratic congressmen essentially ask Hope Hicks about her love life,” Nunes added. “I think that’s very bizarre to have a bunch of old, pervy congressmen asking somebody who has no new information about her love life. I think the American people would be ashamed if they knew what actually happened in that room.”

There were reports that democrat Congressmen took pictures of Hicks.

One day after announcing his bid for re-election, and just hours after former White House communications director Hope Hicks stonewalled the House Judiciary Committee, Donald Trump called into “Hannity” where he accused Democrats of taking pictures of her. He said that two, in particular, were guilty of this, but declined to name names.

This behavior is appalling. Donald Trump has every right to exert Executive Privilege here, just as obama did with the Chief IRS Counsel, who visited the White house 157 times in the midst of the IRS targeting conservatives scandal. The sexual harassment of Hicks is beyond the pale. One would expect feminist groups to be outraged, but their defense of a conservative would also be a shock.

Should Hillary Clinton be once again called to testify before the Senate or House, one hopes that they would address her as “Ms. Lewinsky”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Others have suggested that Nadler is suffering from diminished faculties.

This would be the kind excuse.
In the past week or two, since Nadler’s fainting spell, we saw Angela Merkel try to stand at attention for two national anthems only to be caught on camera shaking like an uncontrollable leaf!

Then we also heard, not saw, that ex-president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi was in court and fainted, dying before the day was out. https://abcnews.go.com/International/egypts-president-mohammed-morsi-dies/story?id=63763829
Nadler’s spokesperson blamed his fainting on dehydration, so did Merkel’s.

To be kind to Nadler what we have to do is keep an eye on Nadler for other signs he’s lost a step or two recently.
Otherwise, it was malicious to call her that.

I think Nadler intended to call Hicks ‘Ms Lewinsky’ and only controlled himself out of fear of the backlash.

June 21, 2191 — White House lawyers blocked Hope Hicks from answering questions 155 times during her congressional testimony, citing ‘absolute immunity’

…according to a transcript of her testimony released Thursday, White House lawyers stopped Hicks from answering lawmakers’ questions at least 155 times, citing “absolute immunity.”

They said that immunity assertion applied to “anything about her knowledge of anything during the period of time in which she was employed in the White House.”

In other words, Ask her about something totally irrelevant to anything under investigation, and maybe we’ll allow her to speak.

By the way, “absolute immunity” has nothing whatsoever to do with claiming executive privilege as a basis for declining to answer questions under oath. “Absolute immunity” has to do with a government employee’s personal immunity from prosecution when he or she has taken some action falling within the scope of his or her official duties. If her White House lawyers didn’t know this, they’re complete idiots. More likely it’s just one more example of Trump’s lawyers giving the rule of law and the American people the finger.

It seems there is no middle ground for Dems to retreat to. The Dem party is disintegrating before our eyes.

Between the amount of “brain freezing” evidenced by Nadler, Pelosi, Biden, et al, and the complete lunacy of Cortez, Booker, Schiff, Gillibrand, Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, etc., the whole party has rushed blindly over the cliff of socialism, hate and racism.

America is not on-board with this stupidity.

Here’s the transcript of the Hope Hicks testimony, if anyone is interested.

A typical exchange copied from the transcript. This was the response when any pertinent question was asked:

Mr. Purpura. Objection. Mr. Chairman, I —

Chairman Nadler. It’s a matter of public record. Why would you object?

Mr. Purpura. Mr. Chairman, as we explained in Mr. Cipollone’s letter yesterday, as a matter of longstanding executive branch precedent in the Department of Justice practice and advice, as a former senior adviser to the President, Ms. Hicks may not be compelled to speak about events that occurred during her service as a senior adviser to the President. That question touched upon that area.

Chairman Nadler. With all due respect, that is absolute nonsense as a matter of law. Are you asserting any other basis for declining to answer the question —

Mr. Purpura. No, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler. — besides absolute immunity, which the gentleman just said?

Ms. Hicks. No, sir.

Chairman Nadler. No, sir. Are you asserting any privileges in declining to answer the question?

Mr. Purpura. We are not, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler. Ms. Lewandowski?

Ms. Hicks. As a former senior adviser to the President, I’m following the instructions from the White House.

Do you follow this? No, we’ve got no legal basis to cite for declining to answer. We’re just following instructions from the White House.

Do you truly have no clue how abnormal it is for a president to override the law simply by giving orders? What do you call it when such a situation comes to exist in a country?

@Greg:

In other words, Ask her about something totally irrelevant to anything under investigation, and maybe we’ll allow her to speak.

So then it was OK to sexually harass her. OK, got it.

Like the rest of those questioned about collusion, she doesn’t have any knowledge of any crimes because there were no crimes. Like Mueller, they are still seeking someone willing to lie to further their agenda.

@james raider: What we see is how people act when they fear no accountability. They know the media will not hold them accountable, the liberal feminist movement won’t, no liberal will object as long as they are attacking Republicans. They don’t even bother to put their brains in gear to make rational comments. That takes more effort than they are willing to put forth.

@Greg:

Obstruction of justice in full view.

@Deplorable Me, #7:

So then it was OK to sexually harass her. OK, got it.

If there was any sexual harassment, it was most likely on the part of her serial-abuser former White House boyfriend, Rob Porter. Her prior involvement with Corey Lewandowski was probably responsible for Nalder’s verbal slip. She would do well in the future to steer clear of men with anger management issues.

@Greg: Uh huh. Just write it off. Liberals get a free ride on misogyny, racism and crime.

There’s no “it” to “write off”. Nadler didn’t “sexually abuse” anybody.

Mr. Miller’s observation is correct. The real story concerning her testimony is the one this topic is intended to distract from: obstruction of justice, on display for anyone who isn’t blind to see; a president giving a subordinate a blanket order to refuse to testify about anything that occurred during her time in the White House, when there’s no legal basis for such a refusal. They’re not claiming executive privilege because they know there’s no basis. It wouldn’t hold up under judicial scrutiny.

@Greg:

There’s no “it” to “write off”. Nadler didn’t “sexually abuse” anybody.

Yes, he did.

Mr. Miller’s observation is correct.

I wish it were, for that would certainly be a dramatic first. However, not discussing conversations with the President of the United States is a common privilege. Though you believe laws only apply to whomever Democrats deem them to and laws they invent on the fly are immediately and completely in effect, that does not comport with reality. In other words, you are full of shit. There was no obstruction here and there has been no obstruction committed by anyone in the Trump administration.

You need a new fantasy.

@Deplorable Me, #12:

In other words, you are full of shit.

The smell you’ve noticed most likely has to do with the manure cart you’re pushing. You should take a moment to inspect the contents.

Read the transcript excerpt. The White House lawyer’s “absolute immunity” reference is patently ridiculous. If you look the term up, you’ll quickly discover that it has nothing at all to do with declining to respond to questions. Most likely it came up because it’s a magical-sounding phrase that Trump has fixated on.

By their own admission, they have no basis for declining to answer other than one that doesn’t actually exist. Executive privilege can be legitimately claimed in specific instances, but not as a blanket refusal covering everything.

Essentially, Hicks and the White House lawyers showed up in response to a subpoena without actually showing up. They might as well have sent cardboard cutouts, like the ones of Donald that were used during Trump College seminars.

@Greg: Essentially, though she has already testified, the Democrats are so desperate for some straw to grasp that they call her again and try to get more where there is none.

Of course, your phony outrage was never exhibited when Lois Lerner appeared, made a statement and then plead the 5th… for no crimes, apparently. Or when Holder and Obama hid behind executive privilege to protect themselves from responsibility for supplying Mexican cartels with guns and the deaths of hundreds, including a US border agent. Nor does the destruction of subpoenaed evidence by Hillary bother you one bit. You ignore crimes and obstruction where they are and see them wherever it is politically useful to see them. Therefore, your views and opinions are nothing but hysterical hypocrisy and not taken seriously in the least.

@Deplorable Me:

“a president giving a subordinate a blanket order to refuse to testify about anything that occurred during her time in the White House, when there’s no legal basis for such a refusal.”

Well, there we have it. Once again we are privy to Greggie Goebbels excellent legal opinion. Perhaps he would like to tell us where he obtained his J.D. since he seems to think he is so much smarter than the President’s White House legal counsel.

In other words, you are full of shit.

Yep. You have Greggie Goebbels, the biggest liar on this forum, pegged.

Ask E. Jean Carroll who she thinks is “pervy”. The answer won’t be “Nadler” or “Biden”, both of whom have been accused by the right lately.

It’s a typically Trumpian approach: “Accuse your enemies of whatever you’re accused of.” Eventually, if this is done persistently and applied broadly, people won’t believe anybody, which puts you on equal footing with everyone else. You’ve effectively destroyed any distinction between truth and a lie.

@Greg: Ask her what “proof” is, too. Also ask Karen Monahan, Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson how much Democrats actually care about charges of sexual abuse, even when supported by evidence and proof. Liberals lying about Republicans assaulting them are a dime a dozen.

@Greg: Like how many james traitor comey refused to answer the FIRST time he was even interviewed? Or maybe how many questions billary refused to answer in her testimony on Benghazi, or her e-mails, or Uranium One? Or maybe how many questions john kerry DID answer for the iranian government, acting as a citizen with no position or authority with the US government. Hope Hicks with a bunch of pervert do nothings that are just still trying to bring down Trump after a two year official investigation yielded no evidence of colluding with russians? You people are delusional from your overabundance of butthurt. Did you cry with the press the night Mr. Trump was elected president? Get over it.

@Deplorable Me, #17:

Ask her what “proof” is, too.

It’s probably more credible than that against Nadler, or Joe Biden.

@Shawn Frye, #18:

Like how many james traitor comey refused to answer the FIRST time he was even interviewed?

I don’t know. Now I’m very curious. Please tell me. How many questions did James Comey refuse to answer?

Maybe you’re referring to a handful of questions he declined to answer in accordance with the established policy forbidding the disclosure of details pertaining to an ongoing investigation?

@Greg:

It’s probably more credible than that against Nadler, or Joe Biden.

Perhaps a “mountain” of it, at the fingertips of Democrats? Like collusion?

I don’t know. Now I’m very curious. Please tell me. How many questions did James Comey refuse to answer?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/09/rep_jim_jordan_comey_said_245_times_dont_remember_dont_recall_dont_know.html

How many handfuls is 245? He was purported to be smart and have an excellent memory. I guess the shock of speaking before a Senate panel made him forget.

@DrJohn: Of for those in the FBI that have “lost” evidence against Hillary. Oh, and speaking of “losing” things, I wonder where the Clinton Foundation Director of Foreign Policy has gotten off to? He’s “lost”, too.

Greg is right. Republicans are dumb. Instead of answering questions and trying to give an answer or decline to give an answer, Republicans should follow the Democrat standard and just say they don’t remember, they have no recollection, or they don’t know.

After their testimony of knowing or remembering nothing, they can then go write their memoirs.

I guess Democrats are the only ones “smart” enough to get away with this.

@Deplorable Me, #22:

How many handfuls is 245? He was purported to be smart and have an excellent memory.

How do you get over 200 I don’t remembers or I don’t recalls? By repeating and rephrasing the same questions over and over when you’ve already been told very clearly that the witness doesn’t remember—and when there’s really no particular reason why he should be expected to remember in the first place.

Here’s an example, from page 24 of the transcript of James Comey’s closed-door House hearing:

Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI’s initiation document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?

Mr. Comey. I do not.

Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?

Mr. Comey. I don’t know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you know who approved that draft of an initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?

Mr. Comey. I don’t.

Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?

Mr. Comey. That Peter Strzok approved? I don’t know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Drafted and approved it.

Mr. Comey. I don’t know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Have you read that initiation document?

Mr. Comey. I don’t think so. I don’t remember ever seeing it.

Mr. Comey. Do you recall seeing the phrase “Trump campaign” in that initiation document?

Mr. Comey. Well, I don’t remember seeing it, ever seeing it, so certainly don’t remember any portion of it, because I don’t remember ever seeing it.

Mr. Gowdy. If it said Trump campaign, do you still have the same answer you had when I asked you whether or not it involved the Trump campaign?

Mr. Comey. That’s a question, Mr. Gowdy, I can’t answer without having seen the document. So I’d be speculating about a document I don’t think I’ve ever seen.

If you search for the phrases “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember” in the SCRIBD transcript, you’ll find the the same pattern, again and again. In a courtroom setting an objection would likely be raised about badgering the witness, but this wasn’t a courtroom.

Trey Gowdy, of course, has displayed this behavior during a number dog and pony shows that republicans conflate with legitimate investigative hearings. Evidently Jim Jordan’s special assignment on this occasion was to keep count, since he can do numbers. The entire point is to create meaningful-sounding material that can be cited in deceptive presentations like the one featuring Jordan and Jeanine Pirro. It’s how they manipulate public opinion.

James Comey is a straight-shooter. So is Robert Mueller. They’re not the ones who are obstructing justice. They’re not the ones who are openly breaking the law to do so. They’re not the ones citing “absolute immunity”, a non-existent legal justification for refusing to answer questions before Congress. They’re part of the DoJ that had not been corrupted by the White House into a cover-up tool. Anyone paying attention should have observed long before now that Trump’s defensive strategy has involved replacing those who won’t do whatever is necessary to protect his butt with willing tools who do so. He burns people out or destroys them in the process.

@Greg: Of course, had he simply answered the question, there would have been no “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall”, would there? Of course, what he was saying was, who created the false stories was not important in the least; all that was important was pretending to believe it and use it for illegal surveillance.

James Comey is a straight-shooter.

Comey is a lying weasel, a tool of the left. He folded under pressure from Lynch and, despite massive proof of Hillary criminally mishandling classified information and lying about it, he served the Clinton’s instead of the American people and nation.

So is Robert Mueller.

Mueller is a lying scumbag that, like Comey, ignore actual crimes, because they were committed by Democrats, to pursue crimes that had not been committed to support the coup against Trump. It is now coming out that General Flynn was revealing evidence of the Clinton Foundation taking cash from Muslim extremists supporting terrorism in exchange for supporting their “schools” and bringing in “teachers”. So, the General needed to be silenced; they Mueller need him to lie against Trump. This is collapsing around Mueller’s lying ears.

@Deplorable Me, #25:

Of course, had he simply answered the question, there would have been no “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall”, would there?

I think it’s entirely possible that Comey never knew or didn’t recall. The questions addressed small details in a world of innumerable small bureaucratic details. Comey would have had no particular reason to know them or to have focused on them at the time. They’re the sort of details that a higher-level administrator usually only finds out if the need to know arises.

Mueller is a lying scumbag that, like Comey, ignore actual crimes, because they were committed by Democrats, to pursue crimes that had not been committed to support the coup against Trump.

That assertion is total bullshit. Who is doing everything in his power—legal or otherwise—to prevent evidence from being revealed and witnesses from giving testimony? It sure as hell isn’t James Comey or Robert Mueller. Obama’s “deep state” is a conspiracy theory, tailored for an audience that has already demonstrated its willingness to believe such theories on innumerable prior occasions. Trump has even taken part in them. Obama being born in Kenya, for example.

@Greg:

I think it’s entirely possible that Comey never knew or didn’t recall. The questions addressed small details in a world of innumerable small bureaucratic details.

Oh, really. First, Comey has been described as very intelligent with an excellent memory. Second, the question was about the initiation of a surveillance campaign on a Presidential candidate, perhaps one of the most sensitive things that can be investigated. You mean to tell me that Comey did not oversee this operation or that he forgot ANY of the details of it? Come on, Greg. I hate to think you regard many of us as THAT stupid.

Either Comey was lying or utterly and completely incompetent, presiding over an agency that was totally out of control. Which one do you like best?

That assertion is total bullshit.

No, it isn’t. Aside from his screwing of General Flynn, Mueller should have known no more than a month into his “investigation” that there was no collusion; well, not by Trump or his team, anyway. He should have also been investigating the source of the dossier, who contracted it and who was behind it instead of using that steaming pile of shit to continue to pursue the collusion he was using to try and create a crime Trump committed. Like Comey, he is either terminally incompetent or a vile liar. Which do you prefer?

You and the rest of the left a shitting your pants over these investigations. That includes Mueller and Comey.

Where is Greg’s reply to #27?

Is there really something mentally wrong with Nader? Why the hell should Ms Hicks answer questions that are not addressed to her, let them find this mysterious “Ms. Lewandowski” and she can answer the questions.
Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) if she was involved in any “anti-immigration campaign messaging,” Hicks responded that “ I don’t believe any of Mr. Trump’s messaging is anti-immigrant.” Is this the purpose of the the inquest I agree with Ms Hicks the President is not anti-immigrant.

@kitt:

Is there really something mentally wrong with Nader?

He’s a liberal, isn’t he?

@Deplorable Me: Greg can never reply truthfully to any of these questions. Very soon, Greg will have to explain why all of his lefty buddies have different rules and laws governing their behavior than do other people. How many Obama administrative personnel answered questions with out using executive privilege, or massive memory loss? I wonder if all of Greg’s buddies will soon have the opportunity to meet on a daily basis in Kansas or maybe Lewisburg, PA.

@Deplorable Me: You know there is always a song,
I’m not Lisa, my name is Julie
An’ Lisa left you years ago
My eyes are not blue but mine won’t leave you
‘Til the sunlight has touched your face