Letters Show How WH Tried To Limit Former Aide’s Testimony

Fiona Hill, President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser, arrives at the Capitol to testify before Congress as part of the House's impeachment inquiry on Monday, Oct. 14, 2019. (Photo by Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Ca... Fiona Hill, President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser, arrives at the Capitol to testify before Congress as part of the House's impeachment inquiry on Monday, Oct. 14, 2019. (Photo by Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The White House tried to limit ex-Russia adviser Fiona Hill’s testimony to House investigators by claiming some topics could be subject to executive privilege, according to letters obtained by NBC News.

The letters between the White House and Hill’s lawyers show that the White House had tried to keep the former adviser from testifying on “direct communications with the president, diplomatic communications, meetings with other heads of state and staffing the president had on calls with foreign heads of state,” in NBC News’ words.

The White House claimed those four topics could fall under executive privilege and were therefore off-limits.

When Hill’s lawyers pushed back, White House Deputy Counsel Michael Purpura replied, “As the White House Counsel has explained, there is no valid impeachment inquiry underway.”

Though the White House did not bar Hill from testifying in the impeachment inquiry, its lawyers told Hill’s attorneys Hill “is not authorized to reveal or release any classified information or any information subject to executive privilege.”

Latest News
139
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Can you say “obstruction of justice?”

  2. Avatar for grack grack says:

    When Hill’s lawyers pushed back, White House Deputy Counsel Michael Purpura replied, “As the White House Counsel has explained, there is no valid impeachment inquiry underway.

    Ah, the “LALALALALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU (with fingers stuck in ears)” defense. Sophisticated!

  3. Did the Suckretarry of State weigh in yet ?

  4. Correct me if I am wrong, but executive privilege does NOT apply when the executive is committing crime(s)!

    Addendum:
    I agree with @joshtpm, “Don’t Coddle Fiona Hill” and I might add, other Trump Admin officials that ought to know better BUT did not say anything or did nothing - hello DEADBEAT Thugs-R-Us Legislators!

  5. Avatar for erik_t erik_t says:

    Bluster is all they’ve got. A (former) representative of the executive branch can invoke executive privilege if they choose. It cannot be invoked on their behalf.

    Sad (and weak).

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

133 more replies

Participants

Avatar for alliebean Avatar for rob_beatty_walters Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for cervantes Avatar for trnc Avatar for george_spiggott Avatar for irasdad Avatar for DuckmanGR Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for generalsternwood Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for dryheat Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for junebug Avatar for daulphin Avatar for jtx Avatar for news247 Avatar for justruss Avatar for timorwig Avatar for occamscoin Avatar for paul_lukasiak Avatar for dicktater Avatar for emiliano4 Avatar for Akimbo

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: