This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/trump-hope-hicks-annie-donaldson.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
White House Tells Two Witnesses, Including Hope Hicks, Not to Cooperate With Congress Justice Dept. Offers to Renew Talks With Democrats if Contempt Vote Is Deferred
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday instructed two more former aides to President Trump not to cooperate with subpoenas from House lawmakers investigating possible obstruction of justice, continuing a crippling blockade of nearly all oversight requests related to the special counsel’s investigation. WASHINGTON — The Justice Department offered on Tuesday to renew negotiations with House Democrats over access to the full text of the special counsel’s report and underlying evidence in an effort to stave off a House vote next week to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt.
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, said that the president’s chief of staff had informed the former aides — Hope Hicks, who served as White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, who was chief of staff to former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II — that they were not allowed to share the materials in question with Congress because they implicate “significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.” The Trump administration was willing to negotiate only if the House Judiciary Committee withdrew its recommendation to hold Mr. Barr in contempt and Democrats postponed a vote over it on the floor of the House scheduled for Tuesday, Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
If the vote proceeds, Democrats were expected to hold Mr. Barr himself in contempt for defying a Judiciary Committee subpoena for the material and grant House committees the power to go straight to court in similar future disputes.
[Read the letter from the Justice Department.]
“The department is prepared to resume negotiations with the committee regarding accommodation of its narrowed subpoena, provided the committee takes reasonable steps” to alleviate the threat of a contempt vote for the attorney general, Mr. Boyd wrote.
It was not immediately clear whether Democrats would accept the move as a good-faith step toward accommodating their weeks-old requests or simply an effort by the Justice Department to prepare for looming court litigation by demonstrating they had engaged with Congress as the standoff escalated.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman who issued the subpoena for Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and underlying evidence, did not immediately respond to the Justice Department’s letter. With the contempt vote looming, Mr. Nadler had written the department on May 24 that the committee was willing to narrow its request to “specific materials that if produced would be deemed to satisfy the subpoena” and make their delivery a priority.
Even if Mr. Nadler were to agree to reopen talks, the two sides appear to be far from a total thaw in hostilities between the Trump administration and the Democratic-controlled House over its attempt to build a public case that the president obstructed justice in impeding the investigation into his presidential campaign’s contact with Russians.
To wit, the last-minute proposal from the Justice Department came just hours after the White House had instructed two more former aides to Mr. Trump not to cooperate with subpoenas from the Judiciary Committee, continuing a crippling blockade of nearly all oversight requests related to the special counsel’s investigation.
In a letter to Mr. Nadler, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, had said that the president’s chief of staff had informed the former aides — Hope Hicks, who served as White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, who was chief of staff to former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II — that they were not allowed to share the materials in question with Congress because they implicate “significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.”
[Read the letter from Mr. Cipollone.][Read the letter from Mr. Cipollone.]
Instead, Mr. Cipollone instructed Congress again to come directly to the White House for any information previously turned over to the special counsel. But he suggested those conversations should be deferred pending the outcome of discussions between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee over access to the broader body of evidence collected by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Instead, Mr. Cipollone instructed Congress again to come directly to the White House for any information previously turned over to the special counsel. But he suggested those conversations should be deferred pending the outcome of discussions between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee.
The practical effect of the White House’s action was to further cut off House Democrats’ access to potentially pivotal witnesses and the evidence they could provide, as Democrats try to build a public case that Mr. Trump obstructed justice in impeding the investigation into his presidential campaign’s contact with Russian operatives. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman who issued the subpoenas, was furious, and he argued the White House’s claims that the material could be protected would not hold up in court. Mr. Nadler was furious, and he argued the White House’s claims that the material could be protected would not hold up in court.
“Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”“Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”
Under subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee, the two witnesses had been instructed to deliver on Tuesday a range of documents related to their work in the White House, including notes and records related to some of Mr. Trump’s attempts to thwart federal investigators — attempts documented by Mr. Mueller in the report he completed in March.Under subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee, the two witnesses had been instructed to deliver on Tuesday a range of documents related to their work in the White House, including notes and records related to some of Mr. Trump’s attempts to thwart federal investigators — attempts documented by Mr. Mueller in the report he completed in March.
Mr. Nadler said that Ms. Hicks, who also served as a top aide on Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, did produce some documents related to her work before the election. He called it a “show of good faith,” though it was unclear how useful the material would prove to an investigation dealing primarily with Mr. Trump’s presidency.Mr. Nadler said that Ms. Hicks, who also served as a top aide on Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, did produce some documents related to her work before the election. He called it a “show of good faith,” though it was unclear how useful the material would prove to an investigation dealing primarily with Mr. Trump’s presidency.
In addition to documents, the subpoenas call for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson to testify publicly later this month — and there was no indication on Tuesday whether or not they would comply. Mr. Nadler made clear his position that they both were still expected to show up before the panel. Ms. Hicks has been subpoenaed to appear on June 19 and Ms. Donaldson on June 24.In addition to documents, the subpoenas call for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson to testify publicly later this month — and there was no indication on Tuesday whether or not they would comply. Mr. Nadler made clear his position that they both were still expected to show up before the panel. Ms. Hicks has been subpoenaed to appear on June 19 and Ms. Donaldson on June 24.
[Read the Judiciary Committee subpoenas for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson.][Read the Judiciary Committee subpoenas for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson.]
“We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson,” Mr. Nadler said.“We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson,” Mr. Nadler said.
But there appears to be little chance either former aide will testify, bolstering the case made by a growing number of House Democrats that the president is actively obstructing another branch of government from doing its constitutionally sanctioned oversight function, and that impeachment proceedings are the only proportional response.But there appears to be little chance either former aide will testify, bolstering the case made by a growing number of House Democrats that the president is actively obstructing another branch of government from doing its constitutionally sanctioned oversight function, and that impeachment proceedings are the only proportional response.
A lawyer for Mr. Hicks, Robert Trout, declined to comment.A lawyer for Mr. Hicks, Robert Trout, declined to comment.
The White House issued similar instructions not to cooperate last month to Mr. McGahn, who had served as one the most important witnesses in Mr. Mueller’s investigation into obstruction of justice. He ultimately did not produce a single document or appear for a hearing. The House is now poised to hold him in contempt of Congress next week and take the dispute to court to try to enforce its subpoena — steps that could soon follow for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson if they do not show up to the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. The White House issued similar instructions not to cooperate last month to Mr. McGahn, who had served as one the most important witnesses in Mr. Mueller’s investigation into obstruction of justice. He ultimately did not produce a single document or appear for a hearing. If it does not alter course for the Justice Department, the House is poised to hold Mr. McGahn in contempt of Congress next week, as well, and take the dispute to court to try to enforce its subpoena — steps that could soon follow for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson if they do not show up to the Judiciary Committee’s hearings.
So far, though, the White House has seen little real cost to evading congressional subpoenas, and officials are aware that legal recourse will take months or longer. Despite threats to fine or arrest witnesses, the House has made no move to use either power. Democrats view all three former officials as important witnesses for public hearings on the Mueller report.
Democrats view all three former officials as important witnesses for public hearings on the Mueller report. Mr. McGahn is cited more than any other witness in the report, serving as a sort of unofficial narrator of many of the ten or so incidents that Mr. Mueller said might constitute obstruction of justice.
Ms. Donaldson, Mr. McGahn’s top aide, took careful notes of Mr. McGahn’s interactions with the president, as well as her own. Democrats believe those notes and Ms. Donaldson’s account could be particularly vivid if aired on national television. When Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director in 2017, for instance, Ms. Donaldson wrote, “Is this the beginning of the end?”
Ms. Hicks appears to have been a less important witness for Mr. Mueller, but she was by Mr. Trump’s side throughout his campaign for office and his early presidency. Ms. Hicks previously cooperated with Republican-led congressional investigations of possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Democrats also continue to try to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller himself, but he is reluctant to testify. Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Mueller should be subpoenaed if he refuses to testify voluntarily.Democrats also continue to try to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller himself, but he is reluctant to testify. Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Mueller should be subpoenaed if he refuses to testify voluntarily.
“He may want a subpoena, in which case I think we ought to issue a subpoena,” Mr. Hoyer said.“He may want a subpoena, in which case I think we ought to issue a subpoena,” Mr. Hoyer said.
For now, Democrats have been left to try to figure out other ways to bring Mr. Mueller’s 448-page to life. On Monday, Mr. Nadler announced his committee would hold a series of hearings on the report with former federal prosecutors, legal experts and John W. Dean, who went to jail for his role in the Watergate affair.For now, Democrats have been left to try to figure out other ways to bring Mr. Mueller’s 448-page to life. On Monday, Mr. Nadler announced his committee would hold a series of hearings on the report with former federal prosecutors, legal experts and John W. Dean, who went to jail for his role in the Watergate affair.
Republicans, who remain closely aligned with the president, have repeatedly accused Democrats of being less interested in the truth than manufacturing a conflict with the White House that could provide a pretext for impeachment. On Tuesday, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Judiciary Committee Republican, called again for Mr. Nadler to move on from his obstruction-of-justice and abuse-of-power investigation. But this time, he painted Democrats’ interests in those topics as detracting from the real threat crystallized in the Mueller report: Russian election interference. And on Tuesday, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, announced that his committee would also convene a series of hearings on Mr. Mueller’s findings related to Russia’s election interference efforts in 2016. The first hearing, he said, would likely focus on the F.B.I.’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation, rather than a criminal investigation, and Mr. Trump’s pursuit of building a Trump Tower in Moscow until well into the presidential campaign, something he denied repeatedly.
Mr. Collins called for Mr. Nadler to schedule “immediate, thorough, and productive hearings regarding Russia’s ability to influence our elections.”
Democrats rejected Mr. Collins’s request as a false choice, and said they were planning hearings on the topic he suggested — just likely in another committee.
Specifically, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, announced on Tuesday that his committee would also convene a series of hearings on Mr. Mueller’s findings related to Russia’s election interference efforts in 2016. The first hearing, he said, would likely focus on the F.B.I.’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation, rather than a criminal investigation, and Mr. Trump’s pursuit of building a Trump Tower in Moscow until well into the presidential campaign, something he denied repeatedly.
“What are the implications of a presidential candidate seeking to make money in the capital of a hostile foreign power during the campaign and lying about it?” Mr. Schiff said at a Council on Foreign Relations event on Tuesday. “And why would that be a counterintelligence concern for the F.B.I. and for the country?”