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

    That wasn’t your claim, which was that all Congressional subpoenas “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.” Statute and Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. Congress has inherent and statutory powers to issue subpoenas.

    What is not “properly constituted” about Congressional subpoenas? Based on what precedent (if applicable)?

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

    A statute IS a written law, as opposed to common law. The U.S. may be a common law country, but has diverged substantially from the predecessor common law since the written constitution was ratified. In any case, please use the term correctly so as not to confuse others.

      Merriam Webster: statute, a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute

      Black’s Law Dictionary: statute, An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite formalities.
      https://thelawdictionary.org/statute-n/


         
         0 
         
         0
        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 1:13 pm

        and statute also has a meaning of being a rule or code of an organization or institution

        when used in this manner – statute would have a contextual meaning instead of a direct one subbing for “written law”

          fishstick: and statute also has a meaning of being a rule or code of an organization or institution

          Meaning the organization creates the equivalent of a written law.

          Statute is distinct from common law. We’ve provided you references, including from a legal dictionary. There is no reason for you to continue to mangle the term.


             
             0 
             
             0
            fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 1:42 pm

            Zachriel: Statute is distinct from common law. We’ve provided you references, including from a legal dictionary. There is no reason for you to continue to mangle the term.

            I’m not mangling the term

            well I can’t help if you keep getting confused to my usage of the word statute

            again – we had this discussion before where I literally typed out when I’m speaking of law law, I type law

            and where I said about using “statute” to describe practicing procedure that aren’t inherently defined by law books themselves

            fishstick: and where I said about using “statute” to describe practicing procedure that aren’t inherently defined by law books themselves

            That’s exactly wrong. Common law refers to the unwritten precedents set by courts over time, such as the constitutional meaning of probable cause in the U.S. legal system. Statute refers to written laws promulgated by a government, such as a law defining murder and its penalties.


             
             0 
             
             0
            fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 4:57 pm

            Zachriel: That’s exactly wrong. Common law refers to the unwritten precedents set by courts over time, such as the constitutional meaning of probable cause in the U.S. legal system. Statute refers to written laws promulgated by a government, such as a law defining murder and its penalties.

            actually it is right due to statute having the alt-meaning of code within a law and not the law itself

            I know that statute also means written law – but in that case I just use the word LAW

            hence the distinction I made to you a while back and today on this page


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 1:36 pm

      Zachriel: That wasn’t your claim, which was that all Congressional subpoenas “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.” Statute and Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. Congress has inherent and statutory powers to issue subpoenas.

      what you are doing here is mixing 2 different arguments

      first off – I’m still right as Congress is not a court of law

      case in point why this particular motion is going through an actual court

      and second – the appeal is based on grounds that the subpoenas the Dems issued in this particular case are not “properly constituted”

      in other words – it is a simple demand for information they are not entitled to

      it would be like the cops search and seizing a suspect without due cause

      Zachriel: What is not “properly constituted” about Congressional subpoenas? Based on what precedent (if applicable)?

      from what I’m reading, that is what is being argued here

      that the subpoena is an unfounded attempt at discovery where its basis itself is in question

      as the Dems want confidential info from Trump business dealings and associates

      Zachriel: A statute IS a written law, as opposed to common law. The U.S. may be a common law country, but has diverged substantially from the predecessor common law since the written constitution was ratified. In any case, please use the term correctly so as not to confuse others.

      when I type law – I mean law

      when I type statute – I generally mean “code or procedure” related to a law

      otherwise I would just type “law”

      we had this same convo before you know

    fishstick: 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”

    You apparently didn’t read the briefs. Did you want to make a substantive argument instead?


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 1:08 pm

      Zachriel: You apparently didn’t read the briefs. Did you want to make a substantive argument instead?

      no I didn’t read them briefs but considering how far left the Dems have gone these past 3 years, it wouldn’t be too much to counter that their claims are BS on the scale of the Steele dossier

      from what I read in news articles and clippings (months ago) the gist was the Dems want financials from periods before Trump even ran for the presidency which begs the question of legitimacy and relevancy in their entire motion

      so it is a matter whether or not the DC court will uphold or upend an investigation where the Dems cannot list the infraction Trump is supposedly guilty of while having no reasonable basis outside of their “just because”

      and if it is upheld – then it will be appealed to the Supremes like ever other overreach by a judge who tried to sandbag this president

    fishstick: so it is a matter whether or not the DC court will uphold or upend an investigation where the Dems cannot list the infraction Trump is supposedly guilty of while having no reasonable basis outside of their “just because”

    Well, “just because” is not part of Congress’s filings. Congress pointed to legislative purposes, based on whether the President’s required financial filings are accurate, along with possible violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and related conflicts of interest, all within the purview of Congressional oversight. This is far more than “just because”.

    Of course, now that there is an official impeachment investigation, Trump’s previous arguments about Congress not having a legitimate legislative purpose are probably moot. If the House can impeach for wrongdoing by the President, it’s clear they can investigate wrongdoing in order to make that determination.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 2:31 pm

      (I am currently on a device that cannot highlight, copy, or paste)

      (so I can’t iso and address specific sentences)

      again – the argument is that the Dem-committee subpoenas are outside their bounds in wanting this confidential information, since their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”

      so when you claim the president is violating the emoluments clause, you should be atleast able to point out where this infraction occurred, no?

      as it looks right now – it amounts to wanting privileged info for nothing more than base allegations

      but you guys are still having trouble isolating to any actual “wrongdoing” here

      just like how the Mueller probe turned into a fishing expedition

      so you guys still have a problem with its legitimacy angle

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

    fishstick: again – the argument is that the Dem-committee subpoenas are outside their bounds in wanting this confidential information, since their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”

    The court has already determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose. Indeed, legislation has already been proposed to address future conflicts of interest. The courts don’t require actual legislation, but only that legislation could be had, and the courts have found that it is not their role to second guess Congress’s intentions.

    But the distinction may be moot. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry.


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 5:24 pm

      Zachriel: The court has already determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose. Indeed, legislation has already been proposed to address future conflicts of interest.

      true enough as it pertains to the courts

      I would only add that their ruling would have to survive the Supremes whom could bat theirs down as a gross misinterpretation

      which wouldn’t surprised me at all considering how the liberals have used the district courts to try and stonewall Trump’s administration on… well every single thing

      Zachriel: The courts don’t require actual legislation, but only that legislation could be had, and the courts have found that it is not their role to second guess Congress’s intentions.

      again – the root basis of the Dems’ “intention” in this case is never specified

      they are trying to use “impeachment” as a cover to gain access to information that has nothing to do with the Trump presidency

      it is the whole Mueller probe in wanting a more expanded mandate, all over again, because the first two pony tricks didn’t work out

      however this time around, Congress has a limited capacity to orchestrate such a move without judicial help

      Zachriel: But the distinction may be moot. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry.

      granted that is possible

      however the Democrats are still going to have to make the case their investigation into this area of Trump’s life has merit to his public position

      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

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

      like Fast & Furious and the IRS targeting conservatives

      another notable is Benghazi

    fishstick: I know that statute also means written law – but in that case I just use the word LAW

    That just makes your confusion worse. Per your usage, “law” means statutory law. But per that usage common law is not “law”.

    Common law is law. Statutory law is law. They’re both law. However, the former is based on court precedents accumulated over time, while the latter is based on written laws as promulgated by a government.

    We’ve provided definitions, including from Black’s Law Dictionary. Also see Statutory vs. Common Law


       
       0 
       
       0
      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2019 at 12:44 pm

      Zachriel: That just makes your confusion worse. Per your usage, “law” means statutory law. But per that usage common law is not “law”.

      and the confusion is still all yours

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

      so when I use [statute], I refer to the latter

      as when I refer to the former, I just type out the word [law]

      it is not my fault you continue to muddle yourself on this issue


    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