Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    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: one would have to go back 9 decades to find the last example where Congress did just “that”

    So? The power is still extant, and can be exercised anytime either chamber of Congress decides to do so. Your claim that they need the cooperation of the executive branch is false. Congressional may typically rely on the executive branch, but when the executive branch is recalcitrant, Congress maintains the threat of using their inherent power of subpoena, as they did during Watergate.

    fishstick: they currently have no enforcement arm nor any detention centers that I am aware

    That is incorrect. The Sergeants at Arms (Paul D. Irving for the U.S. House of Representatives, Michael C. Stenger for the Senate) or their deputies have the authority, given a Congressional subpoena, to detain a person wherever found in the United States. The Congress could keep a detained person in the Congressional cloakroom, perhaps, but they would probably keep the person detained in a hotel, maybe even the Trump Hotel!

      As a sidenote, all Congressional subpoenas expire with the new Congress, so any non-cooperative witnesses would have to be released on January 3, 2021. The new Congress would have to issue a new subpoena to restart the process.

      Also, if a witness remains uncooperative, they may be charged criminally, under 2 U.S. Code § 192.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 25, 2019 at 1:34 pm

      Zachriel: So? The power is still extant, and can be exercised anytime either chamber of Congress decides to do so.

      except Congress is not a court of law so their detention power would be easily overruled by either a federal agency or a judicial ruling

      and without an enforcement arm of their own (and a jailhouse), Congress doesn’t have the general means to do any of what you are saying

      Zachriel: Your claim that they need the cooperation of the executive branch is false. Congressional may typically rely on the executive branch, but when the executive branch is recalcitrant, Congress maintains the threat of using their inherent power of subpoena, as they did during Watergate.

      again – a court order was ultimately the deciding factor there

      not the House’s inherent power of subpoena

      Zachriel: That is incorrect. The Sergeants at Arms (Paul D. Irving for the U.S. House of Representatives, Michael C. Stenger for the Senate) or their deputies have the authority, given a Congressional subpoena, to detain a person wherever found in the United States.

      so a couple guys in DC whose common authority is being Capitol building security guards?

      do you even realize how intangible your argument is becoming?

      Zachriel: The Congress could keep a detained person in the Congressional cloakroom, perhaps, but they would probably keep the person detained in a hotel, maybe even the Trump Hotel!

      now you are just stretching your argument into fantasy land here

      Zachriel: As a sidenote, all Congressional subpoenas expire with the new Congress, so any non-cooperative witnesses would have to be released on January 3, 2021. The new Congress would have to issue a new subpoena to restart the process.

      you mean if there were ever detained in the first place

      Zachriel: Also, if a witness remains uncooperative, they may be charged criminally, under 2 U.S. Code § 192.

      this also falls into the purview of a court

      not the floor of Congress

    fishstick: except Congress is not a court of law so their detention power would be easily overruled by either a federal agency or a judicial ruling

    The subpoena power of the Congress has already been affirmed. You mean the detention could be subject to a writ of habeas corpus. The courts may or may not take their time to review the writ. Meanwhile, awaiting a response from the courts, the person could be detained, though most people would testify rather than prolong their detention. The have the keys to the jailhouse.

    fishstick: and without an enforcement arm of their own (and a jailhouse), Congress doesn’t have the general means to do any of what you are saying

    The Sergeants of Arms of the Congress have the power to enforce a Congressional subpoena. They can detain you wherever you are in the United States, and bring you to the floor of the Congress. (They can also detain you for violating the rules of the chamber.)

    fishstick: so a couple guys in DC whose common authority is being Capitol building security guards?

    Yeah, it’s interesting how badges and the rule of law work.

    fishstick: this also falls into the purview of a court

    Enforcing a statute, any statute falls first to the executive, which is sworn to faithfully execute the laws, then to the judiciary. None of this is required if Congress exercises its inherent power of subpoena.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 25, 2019 at 5:26 pm

      Zachriel: The subpoena power of the Congress has already been affirmed. You mean the detention could be subject to a writ of habeas corpus. The courts may or may not take their time to review the writ. Meanwhile, awaiting a response from the courts, the person could be detained, though most people would testify rather than prolong their detention. The have the keys to the jailhouse.

      again – what you are describing just does not happen

      i.e. in the two most recent cases of contempt findings

      Zachriel: The Sergeants of Arms of the Congress have the power to enforce a Congressional subpoena. They can detain you wherever you are in the United States, and bring you to the floor of the Congress. (They can also detain you for violating the rules of the chamber.)

      again – Congress is not a court of law

      if a sergeant-at-arms does indeed make an “arrest” in this manner, then the arrestee would still be beholden to due process

      Congress couldn’t (in your mind) just detain said person

      that entire scenario still has to go through the federal system thus another agency will likely intervene

      Zachriel: Yeah, it’s interesting how badges and the rule of law work.

      can you even name an instance where such a happenstance occurred?

      I think there are like 3 sergeant-at-arms in DC with like 5-6 deputy agents

      even fully mobilized, that is a very small police force in a restricted area who only have jurisdiction within a Capitol setting

      Zachriel: Enforcing a statute, any statute falls first to the executive, which is sworn to faithfully execute the laws, then to the judiciary. None of this is required if Congress exercises its inherent power of subpoena.

      again – Congress is not a court of law

      it is why you never see Congress arresting and prosecuting law breakers, much less holding people in detention

    fishstick: if a sergeant-at-arms does indeed make an “arrest” in this manner, then the arrestee would still be beholden to due process

    If you mean they can file for a writ of habeas corpus, then you are right. The court may or may not intervene, but they can only intervene under limited circumstances. And they may not intervene immediately, but place it on the docket for consideration in due course.

    Are you claiming the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House or Senate can’t detain someone and forcibly bring them before Congress to testify under a Congressional subpoena? That would fly in the face of history and of McGrain v. Daugherty, which upheld the power of Congress to do just that.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 25, 2019 at 7:36 pm

      Zachriel: If you mean they can file for a writ of habeas corpus, then you are right. The court may or may not intervene, but they can only intervene under limited circumstances. And they may not intervene immediately, but place it on the docket for consideration in due course.

      you do realize what normally happens when a federal officer arrests someone it goes straight to processing then to detention before a court even has to intervene

      the sort of arrest you are referring to here is highly unusual due to Congress not being an executive agency like the police nor a sanctioned court

      thus the entire process you are describing would likely be turned over to another federal authority

      Zachriel: Are you claiming the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House or Senate can’t detain someone and forcibly bring them before Congress to testify under a Congressional subpoena? That would fly in the face of history and of McGrain v. Daugherty, which upheld the power of Congress to do just that.

      yeah

      again – you are talking about a scenario that almost occurred 90 years ago

      the law and its agencies (and even code) have changed alot since then

      you have judges recently throwing out congressional contempt verdicts and filing multiple injunctions on legitimate presidential executive orders, and you think Congress is going to be able to arrest then detain someone without intervention, of any sort?

      I know most libs live in a bubble world but man, yours is floating sky high atm

    fishstick: you do realize what normally happens when a federal officer arrests someone it goes straight to processing then to detention before a court even has to intervene

    That’s right. In the federal system, the government has up to ten days before an arrestee has to be brought before a magistrate judge. Congress is under no such requirement under its inherent power. It’s up to the detainee to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and up to the courts if and when they will consider the writ.

    fishstick: thus the entire process you are describing would likely be turned over to another federal authority

    Sure. The executive is sworn to uphold the law faithfully, and the law makes it a crime to ignore a Congressional subpoena. Congress generally cedes this process to the executive branch under a statute they devised, but Congress still retains their inherent power under the Constitution.

    Your mistake is to confuse the exception with the whole. The vast majority of people, bakers and sports heroes, federal department heads and corporate CEOs, respond to a Congressional subpoena because it is a crime not to do so. For certain officers in the executive branch, there can be legitimate reasons to not meet a subpoena, primarily executive privilege to protect the deliberative process. These situations are normally negotiated between the branches, then as a last resort, decided in court.

    But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena. But we advise you to seek legal advice before you ignore a Congressional subpoena. Unless you have a legitimate reason to avoid answering the subpoena, such as the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege, a Congressional subpoena has all the force of law.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 26, 2019 at 9:15 am

      Zachriel: That’s right. In the federal system, the government has up to ten days before an arrestee has to be brought before a magistrate judge. Congress is under no such requirement under its inherent power. It’s up to the detainee to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and up to the courts if and when they will consider the writ.

      what? – again, Congress is are not their own court of law and are still bound to the due process system of the US

      they don’t have their own individual power to prosecute let alone indefinitely detain people

      not to mention they lack an executive arm and means to do anything which you are claiming

      Zachriel: Sure. The executive is sworn to uphold the law faithfully, and the law makes it a crime to ignore a Congressional subpoena.

      sure and the legislative is also sworn to the same standard

      Zachriel: Congress generally cedes this process to the executive branch under a statute they devised, but Congress still retains their inherent power under the Constitution.

      again – I’ve pointed out where the most recent cases have undercut that ‘inherent power’

      Congress never has the last word in these matters

      Zachriel: Your mistake is to confuse the exception with the whole.

      these aren’t “exceptions”

      they are the most recent cases of contempt motions being overruled by the executive and judicial branches (each for a different reason)

      Zachriel: For certain officers in the executive branch, there can be legitimate reasons to not meet a subpoena, primarily executive privilege to protect the deliberative process. These situations are normally negotiated between the branches, then as a last resort, decided in court.

      except none of that happened in the Holder and Lerner contempt motions

      Holder literally flat out refused to turn over subpoenaed documents regarding Fast & Furious, got held in contempt for it, then an Obama judge threw out the motion

      Lerner flat out refused a subpoena hearing, pleading the Fifth, while during a mid congressional inquiry and the DOJ (under Holder) decided not to pursue an indictment (shocker!)

      those were not legitimate reasons to protect some deliberative process

      they were for purely partisan purposes in trying to cover their own ass for their own scandalous behavior

      Lerner especially due to her testimony several years later where she cried to a judge for her sworn statements to be sealed

      Zachriel: But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena.

      I did not make that claim at all

      I stated Congress’s power of subpoena has severe limitations as proven by the Obama administration

      i.e. – they are not a court of law and they cannot prosecute

      Zachriel: But we advise you to seek legal advice before you ignore a Congressional subpoena. Unless you have a legitimate reason to avoid answering the subpoena, such as the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege, a Congressional subpoena has all the force of law.

      and surely you realize anyone can just claim the Fifth, right?

      of course, that won’t protect you from potential prosecution but as I’ve stated many a time on this page: Congress is not a court of law

    fishstick: Congress is are not their own court of law and are still bound to the due process system of the US

    Congress’s inherent power is not a prosecution or even a punishment under the law. The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. To be released, the person just has to comply with the subpoena.

    Even then, the detainee has the right to file a writ of habeas corpus. That’s what Daugherty did in McGrain v. Daugherty after he was detained by the Sergeant at Arms. But just filing a writ doesn’t mean the courts will intervene. In McGrain v. Daugherty, the courts upheld Congress’s inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, as well as the power of a deputy of the Sergeant at Arms to seize the person under subpoena.

    fishstick: they don’t have their own individual power to prosecute let alone indefinitely detain people

    Just until the end of the Congress, which is January 3 of each odd numbered year. Of course, the new Congress could issue the subpoena again.

    fishstick: except none of that happened in the Holder and Lerner contempt motions

    Holder was adjudicated by the courts. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights.

    fishstick: and surely you realize anyone can just claim the Fifth, right?

    It’s not a magic incantation. A claim of Fifth Amendment protection can be adjudicated like any other claim. If the person is protecting someone else, and is in no danger of prosecution, then there is no Fifth Amendment protection.

    Zachriel: But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena.

    fishstick: I did not make that claim at all

    fs: what you are missing is all of them (technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.

    That is a false statement. Congress has the power of subpoena, an inherent power as well as a statutory power.

    fs: what I’ve been saying over and over is congressional subpoena power is rather limited in scope because they have to rely on the other branches to enforce it

    This is also a false statement. Congress has inherent subpoena power, and the Sergeants at Arms or their deputies can seize and detain a person under Congressional subpoena.

    fishstick: I stated Congress’s power of subpoena has severe limitations as proven by the Obama administration

    For the vast majority of cases, Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. However, under the Fifth Amendment, no one can be forced to give testimony against themselves. And there is also executive privilege to protect internal deliberations between the President and his advisors. However, executive privilege is limited and Congress can pierce the privilege by showing a compelling need for the information. Other limitations include grand jury deliberations, classified information, and information with a privacy concern, though the information may be made available in closed sessions before select committees.

    Perhaps you meant to say that Congressional subpoenas have less power when intruding into the White House, but that is a far cry from saying that people can disregard Congressional subpoenas generally.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 26, 2019 at 11:32 am

      Zachriel: Congress’s inherent power is not a prosecution or even a punishment under the law. The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. To be released, the person just has to comply with the subpoena.

      but the big problem you are having here is you are assuming a Congress committee will get the first and (somehow) only say in a state affair

      historically – I haven’t seen a case that matches your description of it

      and realistically – it will never happen in the government of today

      Zachriel: Just until the end of the Congress, which is January 3 of each odd numbered year. Of course, the new Congress could issue the subpoena again.

      again – Congress is not a court of law and cannot prosecute

      if a congressional committee actually goes out to try and “arrest then detain” someone over subpoena testimony, then they are going to get slapped down by 1 or 2 executive agencies then get checked by a judge

      if they were to even have the balls to do such a thing

      because there will be federal intervention and it will not be a delayed process that exists in your mind

      Zachriel: Holder was adjudicated by the courts. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights.

      yet neither were arrested nor detained, were they?

      Zachriel: It’s not a magic incantation. A claim of Fifth Amendment protection can be adjudicated like any other claim. If the person is protecting someone else, and is in no danger of prosecution, then there is no Fifth Amendment protection.

      now you are talking about another scenario that does not exist

      anyone can claim the Fifth and they are not forced under the law to give “willful” testimony

      THAT is the whole point of the Fifth Amendment

      what I’m saying is THAT wouldn’t protect themselves from being charged or prosecuted

      Zachriel: That is a false statement. Congress has the power of subpoena, an inherent power as well as a statutory power.

      no yours is a false statement

      again – Congress is not a court of law nor do they have the power of prosecution

      THAT matters in the case of “inherent” subpoena power

      Zachriel: This is also a false statement. Congress has inherent subpoena power, and the Sergeants at Arms or their deputies can seize and detain a person under Congressional subpoena.

      again with another false statement

      Congress is not a court of law nor do they have prosecution power

      thus their ability to seize and detain is still beholden to the due process system

      Zachriel: For the vast majority of cases, Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. However, under the Fifth Amendment, no one can be forced to give testimony against themselves.

      again you are missing the context of my argument

      what I am arguing is the force of law in congressional subpoena power is lesser than what exists for lets say the DOJ or a federal special prosecution

      because they are not bound to the same restrictions the bodies of Congress are since they can arrest, detain, then prosecute your arse

      Zachriel: And there is also executive privilege to protect internal deliberations between the President and his advisors. However, executive privilege is limited and Congress can pierce the privilege by showing a compelling need for the information.

      again – you are making the case where you’ve already assumed your assumption is correct

      Congress is reliant on a federal judge (up to the Supremes) to uphold any attempt at undoing executive privilege

      again, none of which happened with this hearing

      Zachriel: Other limitations include grand jury deliberations, classified information, and information with a privacy concern, though the information may be made available in closed sessions before select committees.

      funny thing – this happened with the Mueller report where Nadler tried to make all that info public

      Zachriel: Perhaps you meant to say that Congressional subpoenas have less power when intruding into the White House, but that is a far cry from saying that people can disregard Congressional subpoenas generally.

      no I meant that congressional subpoenas have less power in the overall sense when compared to the subpoena power of a court or special prosecution

      however I never stated that people can generally disregard said subpoena power

      what I stated is they have less “force of law” behind them in compelling people to give “willful” testimony in a setting that is not a court of law

      they can get said people through their DC doors but getting said witnesses to help spin the yarn of the questioner’s own fake narrative… well that is an entirely different matter

      Lewandowski showed up and testified

      the Dems just didn’t like what he testified to


    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