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: again which will always end in a courtroom

    Any detention can be contested in court. That doesn’t mean the person will win in court.

    fishstick: but the power has been chopped at the legs by the Obama administration

    The Obama Administration can’t “chop” away a power granted by the Constitution.

    fishstick: and the cases of AG Holder and Lois Lerner brings that entire ruling to a standstill as the House literally found both in contempt

    Congress didn’t attempt to directly enforce their subpoenas. In Holder, Congress deferred to the courts as they usually do, while Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.

    History and the Supreme Court have made clear that Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, much like a grand jury. You keep repeating that Congress is not a court, but even courts are subject to oversight. If a court detains someone for civil contempt, that person can appeal that decision like any other decision. But the appeal will only be successful if there are valid grounds, otherwise the appeals court is helpless to intervene. Similarly, with Congress detaining someone to enforce a subpoena. The detention can be appealed, but the appeals court can only intervene if there are valid grounds.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 7:05 pm

      Zachriel: Any detention can be contested in court. That doesn’t mean the person will win in court.

      all I’m saying is – that doesn’t mean Congress will either

      it all depends on what a judge will determine that day

      Zachriel: Congress didn’t attempt to directly enforce their subpoenas. In Holder, Congress deferred to the courts as they usually do, while Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.

      but one has to consider if they even could enforce their subpoena

      Lerner pleading the Fifth didn’t protect her from prosecution, as I stated before that the DOJ refused to bring a charge against her

      Zachriel: History and the Supreme Court have made clear that Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, much like a grand jury.

      and recent history has shown a congressional contempt vote done on the floor can literally get cancelled by a judge and stonewalled by an AG

      Zachriel: You keep repeating that Congress is not a court,

      and Congress isn’t

      ultimately any exercise of their “subpoena power” will end up before a judge/s

      Zachriel: …but even courts are subject to oversight.

      that’s true but Congress needs 2/3 to perform such an oversight on a court

      it is not a likely scenario

      Zachriel: If a court detains someone for civil contempt, that person can appeal that decision like any other decision.

      yes but what I’m getting at is theirs holds a greater weight because no one but a higher court can overturn their decision

      Zachriel: But the appeal will only be successful if there are valid grounds, otherwise the appeals court is helpless to intervene. Similarly, with Congress detaining someone to enforce a subpoena. The detention can be appealed, but the appeals court can only intervene if there are valid grounds.

      lets face it – that would not be much of a stretch to claim,
      as there are cases out there that are just borderline weird when compared to charges of being detained without officially charged (which is another Fifth amendment right)

      for instance: Johnny Depp got subpoenaed for a “crime” he was no where at (and 5 years after) as a character witness for a person he never personally met

      then there’s the guy who sued over a “haunted house” he purchased, and his lawsuit over the previous seller actually made it to a state supreme court

    fishstick: that doesn’t mean Congress will either

    That’s right. A subpoena ordered by a grand jury, or court, or legislature, can be contested. However, the appeal can only succeed if there are valid legal grounds. Just saying you don’t want to follow a subpoena, or that they “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law” doesn’t mean you can simply ignore a grand jury or Congressional subpoena.

    fishstick: what I’m getting at is theirs holds a greater weight because no one but a higher court can overturn their decision

    It’s much the same weight. The difference is the Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, while a court or grand jury have to rely upon other branches. All of these subpoenas are subject to appeal, but that may not immediately get you out of detention, which often depends on the strength of the appeal.

    fishstick: but one has to consider if they even could enforce their subpoena

    The Congress’s Sergeants at Arms or their deputies have the power to seize a person and bring them before the Congress, and to detain them until they respond to the subpoena.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 10:57 am

      Zachriel: That’s right. A subpoena ordered by a grand jury, or court, or legislature, can be contested. However, the appeal can only succeed if there are valid legal grounds. Just saying you don’t want to follow a subpoena, or that they “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law” doesn’t mean you can simply ignore a grand jury or Congressional subpoena.

      true enough

      but Congress is not a court of law as they cannot prosecute but only recommend indictments, which could then be ignored by a court or federal branch

      Zachriel: It’s much the same weight. The difference is the Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, while a court or grand jury have to rely upon other branches. All of these subpoenas are subject to appeal, but that may not immediately get you out of detention, which often depends on the strength of the appeal.

      it is two different weight classes

      and you have it reversed

      the Congress has the littlest authority to enforce a subpoena where a court will always have the backing of some federal, state, or local branch

      Congress can get knee-capped by the judiciary and is reliant on the executive to carry out any enforcement of their subpoena power

      Zachriel: The Congress’s Sergeants at Arms or their deputies have the power to seize a person and bring them before the Congress, and to detain them until they respond to the subpoena.

      except two very recent examples of contempt motions passed by the House show this will not be the case in today’s politics

    fishstick: charges of being detained without officially charged (which is another Fifth amendment right)

    As noted many times, civil contempt isn’t covered by the right to a trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 11:00 am

      Zachriel: As noted many times, civil contempt isn’t covered by the right to a trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell

      but what you are missing is a judge can overturn such a civil contempt done by a congressional body

      as judges don’t nominally overturn their court’s own rulings on these matters

    fishstick: but Congress is not a court of law as they cannot prosecute

    We’re not talking about a prosecution, but civil contempt. You really don’t know how this works, or you wouldn’t keep making the same mistake.

    fishstick: Congress can get knee-capped by the judiciary and is reliant on the executive to carry out any enforcement of their subpoena power

    Congress has the power to enforce their own subpoenas. You keep making the same mistake.

    fishstick: but what you are missing is a judge can overturn such a civil contempt done by a congressional body

    A court can overturn civil contempt by a judge, grand jury, and Congress; but only if there are valid grounds to quash the the subpoena. The power of the appeals court is limited by the constitution and precedent.

    Your argument is based on a faulty foundation. A stronger argument would be that subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) are suspect when applied to the President or his close advisors. However, an impeachment inquiry can probably pierce even that privilege.

      A recent case, Trump v. Mazars, upholds the power of Congressional subpoenas:

      D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.


         
         0 
         
         0
        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 7:12 pm

        Zachriel: A recent case, Trump v. Mazars, upholds the power of Congressional subpoenas:

        again those are judges deciding the issue

        not a congressional committee as their fishing expedition into Trump’s finances went through a grand tour through the courts

        so it will likely land in the Supreme Court in the coming year like almost every other Dem backed scheme to stymie the president before it


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 7:04 pm

      Zachriel: We’re not talking about a prosecution, but civil contempt. You really don’t know how this works, or you wouldn’t keep making the same mistake.

      no you are the one who keeps making the same mistake here

      Congress is not a court of law and they cannot levy charges then prosecute people

      Zachriel: Congress has the power to enforce their own subpoenas. You keep making the same mistake.

      again you keep making the same mistake

      Congress cannot prosecute people

      thus their subpoena power is reliant on the executive and judicial bodies to go along with it

      if any one of the other two branches decide to intervene, then Congress has to win their case all the way to the Supremes for it to stand

      Zachriel: A court can overturn civil contempt by a judge, grand jury, and Congress; but only if there are valid grounds to quash the the subpoena. The power of the appeals court is limited by the constitution and precedent.

      a court can overturn anything within any reasoning they can try to justify under the law

      case in point how a single judge was able to dismiss a congressional floor vote

      Zachriel: Your argument is based on a faulty foundation. A stronger argument would be that subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) are suspect when applied to the President or his close advisors.

      my argument has been on a solid foundation of Congress’s subpoena power having clear limitations due to them having no power to arrest and prosecute people

      your counter-argument is bringing up a statute that last happened over 90 years ago

      while I’m pointing out things that happened within the last six

      Zachriel: However, an impeachment inquiry can probably pierce even that privilege.

      which would depend moreso on what that inquiry was based upon

    fishstick: again those are judges deciding the issue

    Actually, the court said they had no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.

    fishstick: your counter-argument is bringing up a statute that last happened over 90 years ago

    It’s not a statute, but the Supreme Court ruling that they have no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 10:56 am

      Zachriel: Actually, the court said they had no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.

      except the very contention is the Dems’ attempt there is not being a proper constituted subpoena

      Zachriel: It’s not a statute, but the Supreme Court ruling that they have no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution

      again – statute by meaning of way of procedure, not written law

      and again – the ruling is over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, which demanding the Trump family finances doesn’t merit for the Dems’ reason of “just because”


    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