Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Corey Lewandowski Trolls Befuddled Democrats on House Judiciary Committee

    Corey Lewandowski Trolls Befuddled Democrats on House Judiciary Committee

    Lewandowski treated them like a joke because that’s what they are. A joke.

    https://youtu.be/sRfJifDqFeI

    Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and answered questions for hours. It was the latest attempt by Democrats to appear as if they are trying to impeach Trump.

    Here is his opening statement:

    The hearing descended into chaos almost immediately. Democrats made themselves look foolish as Lewandowski calmly responded in ways that highlighted the absurdity of the entire event.

    Alex Pappas reports at FOX News:

    Combative Lewandowski frustrates Democrats, as impeachment-probe hearing descends into disarray

    After five hours of testimony before lawmakers, the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, told Lewandowski his “behavior in this hearing room has been completely unacceptable,” and said holding him “in contempt” is “certainly under consideration.”

    Lewandowski immediately frustrated Nadler, the committee’s chairman, during the Democrat’s first question earlier in the day – when the witness, in an apparent effort to stall for time, repeatedly asked Nadler to point to the specific section in the Robert Mueller report related to his question. Lewandowski was following White House orders not to discuss confidential conversations with the president beyond what was already public in the former special counsel’s report.

    Asked by Nadler if he met alone with President Donald Trump in June 2017, Lewandowski said, “Could you read the exact language of the report? I don’t have it available to me.”

    “I don’t think I need to do that,” Nadler shot back. “I have limited time.”

    Asked the question again, Lewandowski told Nadler he needed him to “refresh” his memory of what was in the report. He demanded that Democrats provide him a copy of the report, sending Democratic staff scrambling to find one.

    “He’s filibustering,” a frustrated Nadler said.

    Here’s a video clip of that moment:

    As you watch, you can almost hear Lewandowski thinking to himself: I don’t give a damn what any of you people think, or what you believe you are owed by me.

    When questioned by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who recently dropped his bid for president, Lewandowski addressed him as “President Swalwell.”

    Shelby Talcott of the Daily Caller:

    ‘President Swalwell’: Lewandowski Mocks Congressman During Impeachment Hearing

    Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski mocked Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell’s failed 2020 Democratic candidacy, calling him “President Swalwell” during Tuesday’s impeachment inquiry.

    Swalwell and Lewandowski got into it after the congressman repeatedly asked Lewandowski to read what was written on July 19 regarding dictated to him by President Donald Trump.

    “President Swalwell, I’m happy of what I’ve written, but you’re welcome to read it if you’d like,” Lewandowski replied at one point. Swalwell dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race July 8. He struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail and saw poll numbers that peaked at 1%.

    Watch:

    Lewandowski’s exchange with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was also memorable:

    When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) got to ask a question, Lewandowski gave an excellent response:

    Trump enjoyed the show:

    As I said, this is no longer about impeaching Trump, as much as it is about these Democrats trying to appear as if they’re trying to impeach Trump.

    They’re all terrified of angering the far-left base and getting primaried by candidates supported by AOC and the Squad.

    Lewandowski treated them like a joke because that’s what they are. A joke.

    Featured image via YouTube.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    fishstick: their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”

    The lower court determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose.

    The Oversight Committee’s Subpoena To Mazars Has A Legitimate Legislative Purpose: The [Oversight] Committee has full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office, to determine whether he has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions, to assess whether he is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and to review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities.

    The brief provides numerous specifics.

    fishstick: so when you claim the president is violating the emoluments clause, you should be atleast able to point out where this infraction occurred

    The brief points to the Washington Trump Hotel, as well as his other hotels. Notably, Zelensky made a point of saying he had stayed at Trump Hotel, something which has become standard diplomatic protocol for world leaders.

    In addition, his possible debts to foreign banks may create a conflict of interest, which is well within Congress’s legislative prerogative.

    fishstick: remember, the House has to draft articles to impeach on and the Dems don’t even have the foundation of that yet

    That is not correct. The Zelensky affair is a substantial foundation for impeachment. But perhaps impeachment is not warranted. That’s why you have an inquiry, to collect facts to make the determination.

    fishstick: the root basis of the Dems’ “intention” in this case is never specified

    While spelled out in their 69 page brief in the matter, that is no longer a relevant criteria, as there is now an official impeachment inquiry. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry. Of course, they were hoping it wouldn’t come to that.

    fishstick: because otherwise you are creating a precedent where a sitting president can be called up for impeachment (which only requires a simple majority) and then probed in affairs long before he ever took up the office

    It has to do with conflicts of interest Trump carried into the White House, which is well within Congress’s legislative purpose.

    fishstick: now contrast this to when the Republicans used their subpoena power on the Obama administration, it was investigations directly associated with said administration

    The Zelensky affair is directly relevant to the conduct of the President, which is the basis of the impeachment inquiry.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2019 at 1:28 pm

      Zachriel: The lower court determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose.

      yeah those lower courts have tended to do that alot against this presidency

      only for their rulings to fall flat when the Supremes step in

      odd huh?

      Zachriel: The brief points to the Washington Trump Hotel, as well as his other hotels. Notably, Zelensky made a point of saying he had stayed at Trump Hotel, something which has become standard diplomatic protocol for world leaders.

      oh yeah, it sounds entirely plausible Trump is literally forcing all the world leaders to stay at a Trump Hotel or otherwise no diplomacy for you…

      you really can’t be that naive to think that

      Zachriel: In addition, his possible debts to foreign banks may create a conflict of interest, which is well within Congress’s legislative prerogative.

      your whole sentence here reads like a conjecture argument to create an investigation where a crime is not apparent

      like I typed before, you don’t get to create inquiries and get confidential and privileged info on “just because” arguments

      you need actual articles to investigate and base suspicions don’t meet that threshold (or shouldn’t anyways)

      Zachriel: That is not correct. The Zelensky affair is a substantial foundation for impeachment. But perhaps impeachment is not warranted. That’s why you have an inquiry, to collect facts to make the determination.

      how so?

      there is no foundation because both the transcript and complaint was already given forth

      the fact the Dems can’t even rally behind a single motion here shows they are having a hard time trying to suss out a possible infraction for impeachment

      cause really, what are they going to investigate here?

      the Trump administration’s investigation of US corruption by the previous administration into foreign affairs relating to Ukraine?

      Zachriel: While spelled out in their 69 page brief in the matter, that is no longer a relevant criteria, as there is now an official impeachment inquiry.

      of course that is not entirely accurate as Speaker Pelosi actually changed the House rules, much like how the whistleblower rules, to allow for an impeachment proceeding without a floor vote

      Zachriel: Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry. Of course, they were hoping it wouldn’t come to that.

      pretty sure the above will be pointed out in the new arguments

      as the reason for Pelosi’s sly rule change prevents the minority party enforceable rights during the proceedings and thus framed around a highly partisan effort

      Zachriel: It has to do with conflicts of interest Trump carried into the White House, which is well within Congress’s legislative purpose.

      that is called conjecture as that argument is based upon an assumption you cannot prove

      Zachriel: The Zelensky affair is directly relevant to the conduct of the President, which is the basis of the impeachment inquiry.

      how so?

      when the Dems have yet to flag a single impeachable offense Trump has supposedly had done

      face it – the left is still looking for an article they can rush through the House that can atleast pass the smell test

      but in the meantime, them Dems want access to Trump’s financials “just because, we’re Congress g-dammit!”

      problem is – they have to go through the courts to get it because their own subpoena power can only get them so far because of that due process thingy

    fishstick: statute has 2 definitions meaning written law or rule and procedure pertaining to the general

    Pertaining to the general what? What’s interesting is that you use scare quotes where you don’t need them, but lack them where you do.

    Mangling the definition doesn’t advance your argument. How many citations will it take? Did you even bother to read the article about the distinction between common law and statutory law? Maybe you are confusing statutory law with procedural law, contrasted to substantive law.

    fishstick: only for their rulings to fall flat when the Supremes step in

    The ruling appears to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent in that the subpoena is based on a legislative purpose, such as whether there should be new conflict of interest laws.

    fishstick: it sounds entirely plausible Trump is literally forcing all the world leaders to stay at a Trump Hotel or otherwise no diplomacy for you

    Enough of an inducement that Zelensky thought it proper to bring it up with Trump.

    fishstick: your whole sentence here reads like a conjecture argument to create an investigation where a crime is not apparent

    It doesn’t have to currently be a crime to be considered for legislation. Indeed, quite often not.

    fishstick: that is called conjecture as that argument is based upon an assumption you cannot prove

    You seem to be confusing a legislative inquiry with an accusation. The legislative inquiry is to determine whether or not there is a conflict, and whether or not legislation should be considered to address the issue.

    Of course, all this is moot as they have moved onto an impeachment inquiry.


     
     0 
     
     0
    fishstick | October 1, 2019 at 7:51 pm

    Zachriel: Pertaining to the general what? What’s interesting is that you use scare quotes where you don’t need them, but lack them where you do.

    again you are confusing scare quotes as fake emphasis

    Zachriel: Mangling the definition doesn’t advance your argument. How many citations will it take?

    it isn’t mangling the definition when statute can mean literally rule or code of a law or procedure

    you still have your panties in a bunch over a “word”

    Zachriel: Did you even bother to read the article about the distinction between common law and statutory law? Maybe you are confusing statutory law with procedural law, contrasted to substantive law.

    have you not even realized yet – it doesn’t even matter

    the variance of law has no meaning in the context of how I am using “statute” here

    Zachriel: The ruling appears to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent in that the subpoena is based on a legislative purpose, such as whether there should be new conflict of interest laws.

    except the entire basis of the Dems’ cry of conflict of interest violations are based on conjecture

    thing is they want Trump’s financials because they have no case right now

    but it will ultimately be decided (Supreme) on whether these specific subpoenas will merit a valid legislative purpose

    Zachriel: Enough of an inducement that Zelensky thought it proper to bring it up with Trump.

    so you are naive enough to think that Zelensky staying at a Trump hotel amounts to some kind of criminal conspiracy?

    you know my parents stayed at the Trump hotel in Vegas last year

    perhaps they too are complicit in some “illegal activity”, eh?

    Zachriel: It doesn’t have to currently be a crime to be considered for legislation. Indeed, quite often not.

    what?

    your argument has no factual premise

    let me put it to you this way: what does the House intel committees (think) they have right now that would amount to obtaining investigative rights over mostly confidential information not associated with the Trump presidency

    you see what I mean – there is no crime

    them Dems are just hoping to find a crime with such an a levy of access to such privileged information

    but there is nothing drafted that these committees can actually admit to which is why they are using conjecture, which really amounts to nothing more than opinion

    Zachriel: You seem to be confusing a legislative inquiry with an accusation. The legislative inquiry is to determine whether or not there is a conflict, and whether or not legislation should be considered to address the issue.

    but you need to have a form of levity within said inquiry to obtain such confidential information like this to serve some per-determined purpose or outset of grounds

    the reason being so that it doesn’t look like the Dems are going on a massive fishing expedition into Trump’s financials over the past decade looking (and hoping) for a crime

    otherwise Congress can just demand Trump for stuff and say, “our oversight power allows us access to anything in America! so you have to give it to us”

    IT just doesn’t work that way

    Zachriel: Of course, all this is moot as they have moved onto an impeachment inquiry.

    however the argument above still holds water due to the nature of the information the Dems are demanding and their reasoning behind it

    because them Dems still have no basis for drafting an actual article, don’t they?

    remember when Clinton got “inquiried” – there were actual charges levied that were targeted by an independent counsel

    and that only happened after Bill perjured himself after trying to delay a court case


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend