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: Congress is not a court of law and cannot prosecute
You keep getting that wrong. Detaining someone for civil contempt is not a punishment under the law, because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
fishstick: 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
Only if there are grounds to contest the detention, such as executive privilege. Otherwise, the Congress has the power to enforce its own subpoenas.
fishstick: anyone can claim the Fifth and they are not forced under the law to give “willful” testimony
No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. However, you can’t use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse not to testify if there is no danger of self-incrimination. It’s not a magic get out of contempt incantation.
fishstick: Congress is not a court of law nor do they have the power of prosecution
Civil contempt is not a criminal charge, but you bring up a good point. A court has an analogous power to detain someone for civil contempt (18 U.S. Code § 401). If the judge tells you to answer the question, and you don’t have a valid legal reason not to, then the judge can immediately have you taken and held until you answer. It’s not a punishment as the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
fishstick: 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
It’s more analogous to the judge finding you in civil contempt, and having you held until you meet the judge’s direction.
fishstick: 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
It’s the same force of law. Like a judge, Congress can have you detained until you meet the conditions of a subpoena. In either case, the detainee can file a writ of habeas corpus. Either case can then be treated criminally under the appropriate statute. As for executive enforcement, they have to take you before a magistrate and show cause, so that power is also limited.
By the way, you keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. The term ‘willful testimony’ is usually used in reference to perjury. What do you mean by your use of the term?
Zachriel: You keep getting that wrong. Detaining someone for civil contempt is not a punishment under the law, because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
except that for your argument, Congress has to be the one supposedly detaining said contemnor
your argument just doesn’t work here as most people convicted of contempt within a courtroom are given a term, not a choice
and again – Congress is not a court
Zachriel: Only if there are grounds to contest the detention, such as executive privilege. Otherwise, the Congress has the power to enforce its own subpoenas.
but anything could be considered “grounds” such as the reason Congress is pursuing such an action
and in the end, the matter of Congress’s contempt motion will land in a federal court to be decided if and when contested
Zachriel: No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. However, you can’t use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse not to testify if there is no danger of self-incrimination. It’s not a magic get out of contempt incantation.
except it can easily be argued any testimony can be twisted to become self-incriminatory during an federal investigation
so just as an example: if Congress is subpoenaing you, then why can’t you plead the Fifth?
so if the FBI is investigating a murder and they haul you in for questioning, (guilty or not) why can’t you plead the Fifth?
one is always within their rights to do just that without giving a reasonable explanation
Zachriel: Civil contempt is not a criminal charge, but you bring up a good point. A court has an analogous power to detain someone for civil contempt (18 U.S. Code § 401). If the judge tells you to answer the question, and you don’t have a valid legal reason not to, then the judge can immediately have you taken and held until you answer. It’s not a punishment as the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
pleading the Fifth never protected you from prosecution itself
it just helps set standards to give us citizens a level of due process before the system of government (trials)
also you can’t be detained without being officially charged
what I was implying is that Lois Lerner was under a congressional inquiry where she plead the Fifth but the Obama DOJ refused to prosecute her for stating her Fifth amendment rights trumped a possible case against her
which just isn’t the case
again later – Lerner would have to testify (2017 I think) to her role in the whole IRS scandal in targeting conservatives in a court case brought against the former administration, since they were no longer in power to stonewall the charge
Zachriel: It’s more analogous to the judge finding you in civil contempt, and having you held until you meet the judge’s direction.
look I wholly understand your argument here
I just think you overestimate Congress’s authority to do what you think they are able to do
Zachriel: It’s the same force of law.
it is not though because they are not a court of law
in addition, Congress has no executive power when it comes to these matters as they cannot prosecute
Zachriel: Like a judge, Congress can have you detained until you meet the conditions of a subpoena.
but this scenario of yours will never happen due to the factors they have no executive arm, no detention center, nor overriding authority when a judge or a federal agency comes to contest it
Zachriel: In either case, the detainee can file a writ of habeas corpus.
it wouldn’t even get this far
Zachriel: Either case can then be treated criminally under the appropriate statute.
which takes it out of the Congress’s purview
Zachriel: As for executive enforcement, they have to take you before a magistrate and show cause, so that power is also limited.
what I’ve been trying to show you is Congress can literally get sandbagged by the other two branches because the system does not favor them when it comes to these matters
especially the lower House
they just have the littlest of authority in the arena of holding people accountable because they can investigate till they are blue in the face, but they literally need the help of the other branches to even have a remote chance to enforce their verdicts
and even then – their verdicts done by a full floor vote can easily be overturned by a single judge
it doesn’t even have to go to the Supremes for their motions to get nixed
Zachriel: By the way, you keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. The term ‘willful testimony’ is usually used in reference to perjury. What do you mean by your use of the term?
it is not scare quotes
cmon man – it is just fake emphasis like doing the double finger quotation gesture
I don’t know how else to explain it
but think of the meaning as a single word for testimony that is more intentional and compliant for the questioner at hand
fishstick: your argument just doesn’t work here as most people convicted of contempt within a courtroom are given a term, not a choice
That is incorrect. Civil contempt is imposed every day in courtrooms. Civil contempt entails no right to a jury trial, and it doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
fishstick: except it can easily be argued any testimony can be twisted to become self-incriminatory during an federal investigation
You can argue whatever you want, but you have to convince the court. A simple example is when given immunity from prosecution. If you still won’t testify (absent some other immunity), then you can be held in civil contempt until you do (or until the matter is otherwise closed).
fishstick: also you can’t be detained without being officially charged
A judge can find you in civil contempt in an instant, and have you locked up. You do have a right to know why you are being locked up, and what you have to do to gain your release. You can even file an appeal while you sit in detention.
The House and Senate each have the same power.
fishstick: but think of the meaning as a single word for testimony that is more intentional and compliant for the questioner at hand
Willful means deliberate and not coerced. So perjury is the “willful {deliberate, not inadvertent or unknowing} testimony of a person under oath of material facts known to be false.”
H. Beatty Chadwick holds the U.S. record {Yay!} for longest time held for civil contempt; fourteen years, and never charged with a crime, much less convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
Just for your information, federal courts limit detention for civil contempt to the term of a grand jury, which would be at most 18 months. Similarly, detention for civil contempt of Congress is limited to the term of the Congress, which ends January 3 of each odd numbered year. When the detention is no longer coercive and becomes punitive, the petitioner must be released or charged. That’s why poor Chadwick was finally released. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
Zachriel: That is incorrect. Civil contempt is imposed every day in courtrooms. Civil contempt entails no right to a jury trial, and it doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
true to an extent but they are still term based not “indefinitely” based charges
Zachriel: You can argue whatever you want, but you have to convince the court.
yes and like I typed out many a time on this page – the court supersedes the legislative when it comes to these matters
Zachriel: A judge can find you in civil contempt in an instant, and have you locked up. You do have a right to know why you are being locked up, and what you have to do to gain your release. You can even file an appeal while you sit in detention.
however your little scenario here misses the pretext for a civil contempt violation
Fifth Amendment rights protect you from detained without being charged so any contempt violation would have an underlining charge associated with it
Zachriel: The House and Senate each have the same power.
no they don’t because all your “examples” have been court based contempt violations
Zachriel: Willful means deliberate and not coerced. So perjury is the “willful {deliberate, not inadvertent or unknowing} testimony of a person under oath of material facts known to be false.”
sure but perjury does not exist in this case
Lewandowki was never indicted or charged with obstruction
Zachriel: H. Beatty Chadwick holds the U.S. record {Yay!} for longest time held for civil contempt; fourteen years, and never charged with a crime, much less convicted.
again – that was done by way of a court
Zachriel: Just for your information, federal courts limit detention for civil contempt to the term of a grand jury, which would be at most 18 months. Similarly, detention for civil contempt of Congress is limited to the term of the Congress, which ends January 3 of each odd numbered year. When the detention is no longer coercive and becomes punitive, the petitioner must be released or charged. That’s why poor Chadwick was finally released. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
probably so but I see how that has any merit for your argument
Zachriel: The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
apparently they don’t
you would think after 14 years he would have used one to open the lock and walk out of there
fishstick: true to an extent
Not true “to an extent”. It’s true.
fishstick: but they are still term based not “indefinitely” based charges
The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
The person under detention for civil contempt can get out of the jail any time they are ready to follow the court’s instructions.
fishstick: Fifth Amendment rights protect you from detained without being charged so any contempt violation would have an underlining charge associated with it
That’s not true. We even provided an example, poor poor Chadwick. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
fishstick: you would think after 14 years he would have used one to open the lock and walk out of there
He could have. All he had to do was tell the court where the money was so that his ex-wife could get her share. Congress has the equivalent inherent contempt power.
You really don’t have any idea how this works.
Zachriel: Not true “to an extent”. It’s true.
your statement from before is only true to an extent
civil contempt charges are not filed everyday and any detention that may come with it is hardly indefinite
most contempt charges I’m finding on situations you are describing are basically censures, fines, and 30 day sentences
Zachriel: The person under detention for civil contempt can get out of the jail any time they are ready to follow the court’s instructions.
yes I knew what you meant
I was making a JOKE of it
again again – most contempt violations are usually NOT indefinite jail sentences
Zachriel: That’s not true. We even provided an example, poor poor Chadwick. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
yeah poor poor Chadwick
his case being brought into a conversation to “prove” Congress has some unilateral subpoena power that includes locking people up
I’m pretty sure he would laugh if he were to read this exchange because poor poor Chadwick would likely tell you, a court was the one who held him in contempt
Zachriel: He could have. All he had to do was tell the court where the money was so that his ex-wife could get her share. Congress has the equivalent inherent contempt power.
Z: You really don’t have any idea how this works.
and you really have no clue what sarcasm reads like, do you?
and again – they don’t have the same inherent contempt power
do you know why?
hint hint: they are not a court of law
fishstick: civil contempt charges are not filed everyday …
Civil contempt charged indeed are filed every day. In the U.S., they are very common in divorce or child support situations, but can occur in most any court when someone refuses to follow the court’s instruction.
fishstick: and any detention that may come with it is hardly indefinite
Civil contempt detentions are limited because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. They can get out whenever they want. All they have to do is follow the court’s instructions. Congress has the equivalent power.
fishstick: they don’t have the same inherent contempt power
That is incorrect. See McGrain v. Daugherty.
Z: McGrain v. Daugherty
John McGrain was the Deputy Sergeant at Arms who arrested the brother of the Attorney General, Mally Daugherty, pursuant to a Senate subpoena. Daugherty filed a writ of habeas corpus.
Supreme Court: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution… This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792”.
Zachriel: Civil contempt charged indeed are filed every day. In the U.S., they are very common in divorce or child support situations, but can occur in most any court when someone refuses to follow the court’s instruction.
again with this apples to oranges argument
you are still trying to compare the court to a congressional committee
I keep pointing this out but it keeps going over your head
Zachriel: Civil contempt detentions are limited because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. They can get out whenever they want. All they have to do is follow the court’s instructions. Congress has the equivalent power.
again – Congress does not have the same subpoena power because they are not a court of law
Zachriel: That is incorrect. See McGrain v. Daugherty.
again – that ruling was over 90 years ago
and in the end – the courts were the final say in the matter
not the Congress
Zachriel: John McGrain was the Deputy Sergeant at Arms who arrested the brother of the Attorney General, Mally Daugherty, pursuant to a Senate subpoena. Daugherty filed a writ of habeas corpus.
this has gone so far from the mark of the Lewandowski hearing
Zachriel: Supreme Court: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution… This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792”.
and none of which applies to Lewandowski hearing as he both showed up and testified
(face it) you liberals just didn’t like what you heard
the problem you have grasping is the congressional committee wasn’t owed any “willful” testimony that would fit the questioner’s narrative
so Lewandowski could have answered, “get bent”, to every question and he still would have been within his rights at that hearing since his testimony is already on record
if Nadler & company thought there was a case for actual contempt, then they would have filed a motion for it
—
and again, being held in contempt in this day and age is easily contestable in the courts despite the ruling of McGrain v Daugherty
as I pointed out with AG Holder, who refused to comply with a congressional inquiry and Lois Lerner who flatly refused an actual subpoena
so while Congress may have that power of subpoena, it only exists on paper because they lack the actual authority to carry it out
and thus these committees need DOJ support and court issues to even make their own floor motions stand
fishstick: you are still trying to compare the court to a congressional committee
As the Supreme Court made clear, “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution”.
fishstick: that ruling was over 90 years ago
It’s never been overturned, or even seriously questioned. The power exists even if you don’t acknowledge it.
fishstick: AG Holder, who refused to comply with a congressional inquiry and Lois Lerner who flatly refused an actual subpoena
Holder was adjudicated, and there was no finding of wrongdoing on his part. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
fishstick: so while Congress may have that power of subpoena, it only exists on paper because they lack the actual authority to carry it out
As the Supreme Court found in McGrain v. Daugherty, the Constitution gives Congress the inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, including the power to send their Sergeant at Arms or their deputies, to arrest and detain someone under subpoena.
Zachriel: As the Supreme Court made clear, “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution”.
again which will always end in a courtroom
not in a body of Congress
Zachriel: It’s never been overturned, or even seriously questioned. The power exists even if you don’t acknowledge it.
but the power has been chopped at the legs by the Obama administration in two very recent cases where contempt was voted upon by a congressional body
and THAT will always exist whether you acknowledge it or not
Zachriel: Holder was adjudicated, and there was no finding of wrongdoing on his part. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
and again you miss the point
a court decided the matter of AG Holder and the DOJ refused to prosecute Lois Lerner
they just keep flying over your head
Zachriel: As the Supreme Court found in McGrain v. Daugherty, the Constitution gives Congress the inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, including the power to send their Sergeant at Arms or their deputies, to arrest and detain someone under subpoena.
and the cases of AG Holder and Lois Lerner brings that entire ruling to a standstill as the House literally found both in contempt but there was no detention or prosecution
do you know why?
because Congress is not a court of law
Leave a Comment