“The information in the search warrant affidavit is not inconsistent with Ms. Hicks’ testimony, and does not establish any lack of candor on her part,” wrote attorneys Robert Trout and Gloria Solomon.
“She knows precisely when and how she first learned about Karen McDougal, Ms. McDougal’s agreement with American Media, and ‘hush money’ payments to Story Daniels (Stephanie Clifford). It was all from press inquiries,” the attorneys said. “Her testimony about those subjects before the Judiciary Committee, like the information she provided to the United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York and the Office of Special Counsel, was truthful and accurate.”
The committee had raised questions about Hicks’ testimony after the documents the FBI released about Cohen showed he had spoken on the phone with then-candidate Donald Trump and Hicks, and the conversations were apparently about Clifford and McDougal.
Hicks testified in June that she had no information about Clifford other than what she learned from reporters.
“Again, I had no knowledge of Stormy Daniels other than to say she was going to be mentioned in the story amongst people that were shopping stories around,” Hicks testified. “There were no specifics offered by the reporter, and I didn’t have any other information other than what was being relayed to me by the reporter.”
But Hicks’ attorneys argued there were no specifics about the contents of the phone calls listed in the FBI documents, and argued that the FBI affidavit “contains only an incomplete and misleading picture of Mr. Hicks’ activities.”
Of the three October 2016 phone calls that the committee cited, including one with Trump, the attorneys wrote that Hicks “is quite certain that none of her calls that day with Mr. Cohen related to any agreement with or payments to Stormy Daniels.”
A committee spokeswoman said the committee would evaluate the response from Hicks’ attorneys.
“The Committee will evaluate the claims made by Ms. Hicks’ counsel in response to our questions and determine next steps,” the spokeswoman said. “This matter is a very serious one because it relates to the President’s involvement in campaign finance crimes.”
This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.