Hope Hicks testified before the House Judiciary Committee on June 19. | Alex Wong/Getty Images congress Hope Hicks rejects Dems' claim that she misled House Judiciary Committee

Attorneys for former White House communications director Hope Hicks on Thursday said the longtime confidante of President Donald Trump stands by her testimony, disputing suggestions from House Democrats that she misled the House Judiciary Committee about hush money payments to women who claim they had affairs with Trump.

“Ms. Hicks stands by her testimony. She had no knowledge of, and was not involved in any conversations about, ‘hush money’ payments to Stormy Daniels during the campaign,” Robert P. Trout and Gloria B. Solomon, Hicks’ attorneys, wrote in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).


“The information she provided to the committee was truthful to the best of her knowledge and recollection,” the lawyers added.

A spokeswoman for the Judiciary Committee said the panel “will evaluate the claims made by Ms. Hicks’ counsel,” calling the issue “a very serious one because it relates to the president’s involvement in campaign finance crimes.”

Last month, Nadler demanded that Hicks clarify her June 19 testimony after new documents unsealed by a federal judge in New York raised concerns over whether Hicks misled lawmakers about her involvement with illegal hush-money payments directed to Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who alleges she had an affair with Trump.

Those documents — which included federal search warrants — revealed that Hicks discussed the Daniels matter in a phone call with Trump and his then-attorney and fixer Michael Cohen. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and lying to Congress and is serving a three-year prison sentence in part for orchestrating the illegal hush-money scheme.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

During her closed-door testimony before the Judiciary Committee in June, Hicks repeatedly denied that she was ever present for conversations about the payments, and said she had “no knowledge” of the Daniels situation aside from conversations with journalists who were reporting on the hush money payments.

“There were no specifics offered by the reporter, and I didn’t have any other information than what was being relayed to me by the reporter,” Hicks told lawmakers.

In a letter to Hicks on July 18, Nadler said the newly unsealed information “raises substantial questions about the accuracy of” her testimony.

“Given the apparent inconsistencies between your testimony and this evidence, I would like to give you an opportunity to clarify your testimony on a voluntary basis, prior to our considering compulsory process,” Nadler wrote.

But Trout and Solomon said Hicks learned about hush-money payments only from reporters who were inquiring with the Trump campaign about them, and said she “was not involved in any communications about payments to Stormy Daniels during the campaign.”

“Ms. Hicks was not part of any conversations about hush money payments to Ms. Daniels before they were reported,” the attorneys wrote on Thursday.

According to Trout and Solomon, Hicks turned down a proffer agreement from federal investigators in the Southern District of New York when she testified to them as part of the hush money probe. They said Hicks gave the same testimony to the Judiciary Committee and added that prosecutors have not flagged any questions or concerns about the accuracy of her previous testimony.

“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 lawyers wrote.

Despite Trump’s earlier claims that he had no knowledge of the hush money payments, federal prosecutors alleged that Trump “directed” Cohen to buy Daniels’ silence ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

In those same documents, prosecutors said the hush money probe was over, adding that they also looked into whether anyone lied to investigators or otherwise obstructed justice.