Maggie Haberman Just Asking: Should Hope Hicks Do A Crime? IS IT CRIME TIME?
While you were having your Memorial Day meat grilling situation, hopefully you were intelligent enough to mostly not look at the internet. You didn't miss much, aside from the breaking news of "Oh look, Donald Trump is on a foreign trip again, so he's embarrassing us more than usual, wait holy shit he tweeted WHAT? That's fucking grotesque, even for him."
And you may have missed the New York Times asking the hottest question of all: Should Hope Hicks do crime?
Not only was the linked article a Maggie Haberman special, as many have pointed out, the accompanying picture (taken by a Times photog in 2018, naturally) was basically a "Glamour Shot," and is the New York Times seriously for real right now?
Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now? In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photo… https://t.co/jirHLPfTz6— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)1558887539.0
What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by… https://t.co/qcLqnfLGkq— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)1558889880.0
Whatever will the rich white lady do! After all, she is the former member of the Trump administration the rich white people media likes to call an "enigma," therefore the question of whether or not she will defy a legal subpoena from Congress is EXISTENTIAL.
Soledad O'Brien noted that there's another reason Maggie Haberman might be treating Hicks and her EXISTENTIAL QUESTION with such deference, once she realized it was written by Maggie Haberman:
As we explained last week, the House Judiciary Committee's decision to subpoena is significant, and it's not because it's EXISTENTIAL FOR HOPE HICKS PERSONALLY. Hicks appears all over the Mueller Report as a person who was up close and personal for many months with Donald Trump's constant obstruction of justice, interacting with Trump in such a personal way she might as well have been one of the Udays or the Qusays, except that he actually likes her. She was involved in the drafting on Air Force One of the Trump lie-response to the revelations of Le Dipshit Junior's big Trump Tower Russian meeting, a statement the president reportedly dictated. And as Haberman finally gets around to noting approximately one hundred paragraphs in, the Mueller Report says Hicks was close by Trump when he found out Robert Mueller had been appointed, and can attest to just how much he was losing his shit.
Unfortunately, the article for some reason says (still, five days after its publication) that Jeff Sessions appointed Mueller, which is simply factcheck WRONG, since it was Rod Rosenstein who did that:
Lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy asses over there at the New York Times.
For a truly exhaustive accounting of just how bad Maggie Haberman fucked this up, and how many little details she could have included about Hicks's appearances in the Mueller Report, if she felt like being a journalist that day, check out this long thread from Marcy Wheeler. Here is but one for instance:
And lest you think that tweet way up at the top, about the "existential question" Hicks faces, is simply the flippant mistake of some dipshit millennial social media person, and lest you think we are being unfair about the content of the piece, it's Haberman herself who writes that Hicks is "facing an existential question" right now. She also writes that Hicks's "options are fraught." Like Felicity Huffman trying to decide whether or not to make her dumb kid take the SAT the old-fashioned non-criminal way or to do the opposite of that, Hope Hicks is apparently sitting around with a pensive look on her face (see above) trying to decide "What about crime? Should I look into possibly committing some crime in the near future? Or should I do something equally mysterious and enigmatic, but that technically isn't against the law? HMMMMMMM SO MANY QUESTIONS."
But maybe there is a middle ground?
The likeliest possibility would be a compromise, where she would submit to an interview as long as certain topics are off limits. More recently, Mr. Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached a deal with the Senate Intelligence Committee to come in for a limited interview, after he balked at a subpoena.
Right, because that's a normal concession a Democratic-controlled committee needs to make, in order to get a former administration official to respond to a subpoena. "Sure, Hopey, we promise we won't ask you about any of the crimes if you'll just come sit with Congress for a while! That's a fair compromise, according to Maggie Haberman in the New York Times!"
Can it be the holiday weekend again? Everything is fucking stupid and we hate it.
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!
Wonkette is ad-free and funded ONLY by YOU, our dear readers. If you love Wonkette, SUPPORT WONKETTE.