Corey Lewandowski Trolls Befuddled Democrats on House Judiciary Committee
Lewandowski treated them like a joke because that’s what they are. A joke.
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:
WATCH: Corey Lewandowski’s full opening statement
“We as a nation would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises facing our country as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing.” pic.twitter.com/g2AQjghb2C
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
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:
Rep. Nadler: “Is it correct that as reported in the Mueller Report on June 19, 2017 you met alone in the Oval Office with the president?
Corey Lewandowski: “Is there a book and page number you could reference me to, please? I don’t have a copy of the report in front of me.” pic.twitter.com/4KHYhfxo0C
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
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:
Corey Lewandowski to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: “Could you repeat the question? I didn’t hear it. Just a rant.”
Full video here: https://t.co/4Y5h3ZMtW9 pic.twitter.com/1qbdGYkMsQ
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) got to ask a question, Lewandowski gave an excellent response:
Corey Lewandowski to @RepMattGaetz: “I think they hate this president more than they love their country.” pic.twitter.com/NVKWgq0bao
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
Trump enjoyed the show:
Such a beautiful Opening Statement by Corey Lewandowski! Thank you Corey! @CLewandowski_
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 17, 2019
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.
Ron Coleman
Comments
fishstick: their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”
The lower court determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose.
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.
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.
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