Discussion: Nadler: Hicks Said Trump Was 'Serious' About Willingness To Accept Foreign Dirt

But it’s a hoax right? No collusion!


The White House lawyers present didn’t tackle and gag her before she could respond to the question? That shows either remarkable restraint, or severe dereliction of the duty for which they were assigned.


It’s ok, the Mueller Report already totally exonerated Donnie on all future collusion, bankruptcies, indictments, parking tickets, civil judgements, foreclosures, etc. too…


Interesting that an answer was given to that question…they must somehow think that it doesn’t damage Trump to say that accepting foreign interference is just fine. We can only hope they are that stupid, and do something even more open than happened in 2016, and get caught and smacked down during the campaign.


I want to quickly say before this thread devolves that it’s surprising she was able to get that out, and not surprising in its obvious truth. I’ve never heard him convincingly argue that he understands a thing that helps him could be morally wrong. I don’t think he’s capable of it.


What’s the big deal?

Everybody knows it’s true. Trump is in the business of normalizing deviance. Before Trump, the Stephanopoulos interview would have resulted in immediate Impeachment and probably resignation in lieu of it within days.

The problem in America was never all about Trump.

It’s what Trump was able to get America to do.


Trumpf must be really steamed about this!


Just like he did last time? nothing happened then what should he worry about now?


Do you suppose that question was asked in reference to Trump’s willingness to accept foreign help during the campaign and not any experience that Hicks had with Trump in the WH? That would explain it.

1 Like

This could be read to imply that Hicks wants to tell the truth. My impression is that she’s just as corrupt and self-serving as the rest of the clan. She appears to be more than happy to have the cover of cynically claimed WH immunity to participate in the coverup.

1 Like

Everybody does it. And if everybody doesn’t do it, they should.

Because it’s not wrong. It’s not collusion.

It’s only a way to win.

And I’m a wiener.

1 Like

Agree. That Corallo guy seems to be the only one of the gang who was mindful of the legalities. But why would she say that, then? Why not just evade the question?

1 Like

White House Counsel’s Office lawyers. Lawyers that you and I pay for!


Hope Hicks’ spokespeople or counsel will claim Nadler misinterpreted or is misrepresenting what she testified to and issue a “clarification” denying any knowledge Trump would knowingly accept foreign assistance in an election.

1 Like

It will be interesting to see how they use the foreign opposition information, since it will be such a focus of every news organization except for Fox. It will have to be subtle and placed carefully-- chances are good that we won’t get a “Russia, if you’re listening…” moment.
I’m fact, a candidate could possibly plant some obviously fake oppo on him or herself to try to smear the opposing side. That is likely to be Trump’s tactic this time.
(Facebook is obviously going my to be corrupt. No question.)

Hell Donald said he’d take dirt from foreign governments.
The Daily Show look at Stephanopoulos interview.

Colbert on Hope or lack thereof!

1 Like

Although he’s part of the problem, Rick Wilson:

"That said, I have to beg my Republican friends to imagine—just for a moment—what you’d be doing if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama said they would accept the help of a foreign power in a campaign and not report it to the FBI.

I’ll tell you what you’d do: You’d lose your fucking shit. You’d spurt blood from your goddamn eyes.

Entire forests would be leveled and pulped to write the condemnatory articles and books. The lights would dim on the Eastern Seaboard, and nuclear power plants would be brought online to support the massive surge of electricity needed to power a hundred thousand new servers hosting the hundred million articles and videos you’d make condemning this outrageous act."


I’ve never heard him convincingly argue that he understands a thing that helps him could be morally wrong. I don’t think he’s capable of it.

Totally agreed. That is his essential characteristic.

1 Like

who wants to bet that Nadler is mischaracterizing what Hicks actually testified to?