Run Hope Run!!!!

Hope Hicks is the Forrest Gump of the Trump White House

By Elie Honig

Hope Hicks, former campaign adviser and White House communications director for President Donald Trump, will testify before the House Judiciary Committee this week. But under a negotiated agreement with Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Hicks will testify behind closed doors. No cameras, no live audience, no visuals -- just a stenographer's rote recording of Hicks's testimony, released publicly after the fact.

By allowing Hicks to testify in private, Nadler has botched a rare opportunity to give the public a visceral, firsthand look at Trump's efforts to derail the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Hicks is, in a sense, the Forrest Gump of the Mueller investigation: she somehow witnessed (and at times participated in) seemingly every major event in Trump's prolonged campaign to obstruct justice. According to Mueller's report, Hicks issued a public statement falsely denying contacts between the campaign and Russia; facilitated Trump's efforts to pressure then- Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself or resign; witnessed Trump's efforts to hide information about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner and a group of Russians who had offered dirt on Hillary Clinton; worked with Trump to draft a misleading public statement about the Trump Tower meeting after it happened; witnessed Trump's efforts to have then-White House counsel Don McGahn falsely deny that Trump tried to have McGahn fire Mueller; and assisted Trump's efforts to dissuade former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn from cooperating.

Nadler defended his deal permitting Hicks to testify behind closed doors by noting the importance of Hicks' testimony to the committee, regardless of format. Better to get something than (potentially) nothing, Nadler seems to reason.

But I know from my work as a prosecutor that there is a world of difference between a written transcript and live testimony. Juries -- comprised of everyday American citizens -- react more strongly to what they see and hear than what they read. A transcript is inherently dry and two-dimensional. Will more people read Hicks's testimony than the few who have read Mueller's report?

But imagine the impact if Hicks were to sit before the Judiciary Committee and detail Trump's efforts to squash Mueller's investigation -- live in public view, in person, in her own voice. That kind of testimony could have been a game-changer.

The open question is whether Nadler struck this lackluster deal because of poor tactics or to avoid a potentially dramatic moment that could swing public opinion -- which has moved slowly but not decisively toward impeachment -- increasing pressure on reluctant House leadership to pursue impeachment.

Hicks' testimony, even in written transcript form, will shed light on the nature and depth of Trump's obstructive conduct. But it could have done so much more.