Lewandowski Hearing

[JasperL]

It is "changing the rules". "... the first time that attorneys have been allowed to question a witness under recently passed committee rules. ..."

Barry Berke Makes House Debut With Lewandowski as Democrats Push Impeachment | National Law Journal

Why does it matter. The Congress establishes the rules for hearings like this. It's a privilege that every congress enjoys and allowing a "staff" member or consultant our outside lawyer isn't an abuse of any tradition or law. Congress routinely hires outsiders, including for questioning witnesses. Last time I'm aware of was when the Senate hired outside counsel to participate in the Kavanaugh hearings. That was like a whole year ago, so we're reaching way back in time, but the precedents are there.

He did a good job. My favorite part was him forcing Corey to admit that when he makes public appearances we can assume he's lying and then repeatedly pointing out that these things he's not allowed to discuss with Congress cause privilege!! he was free to write about and did write about extensively in his book.

 

[Barnacle]

Why does it matter. The Congress establishes the rules for hearings like this. It's a privilege that every congress enjoys and allowing a "staff" member or consultant our outside lawyer isn't an abuse of any tradition or law. Congress routinely hires outsiders, including for questioning witnesses. Last time I'm aware of was when the Senate hired outside counsel to participate in the Kavanaugh hearings. That was like a whole year ago, so we're reaching way back in time, but the precedents are there.

I'm not sure but did those outside counsels question Kavanaugh or Blasey-Ford during the hearing?

 

[Mach]

It is "changing the rules". "... the first time that attorneys have been allowed to question a witness under recently passed committee rules. ..."

That's true but not in the way you imply. It was the first time attorneys had been allowed to question witnesses "UNDER RECENTLY PASSED COMMITTEE RULES".

Obviously since the rules were just passed, how could any attorney's question witnesses under those rules in the past, if they were not yet passed until just now? Are you trying to fool slow people?

It's a fact that attorney's question witness in congressional hearings throughout our history, it's established precedent, and was not contested until now.
- Iran Contra (30 years ago)
- Whitewater

Staff attorney's questioned witnesses in both cases, and there was no faux outrage then.

Despite William Barr’s objections, it’s normal for Congress’ staff to question witnesses.

 

[JasperL]

I'm not sure but did those outside counsels question Kavanaugh or Blasey-Ford during the hearing?

You're missing the point and I'll end it here because you're just mucking up the thread with this nonsense. Bottom line is there is nothing improper or even really notable about Congress establishing the rules for a hearing like this. It happens ALL.THE.TIME. And if Democrats want to allow outside counsel or staff or consultants to question a witness, they can do it, it's fine, normal, recent history confirms this. Does not matter who she questioned. What matters is the GOP set the rules and allowed her, outside counsel, to ask questions in that hearing.

Frankly IMO the Congress would work a lot better if they did this more often. The 5 minute stuff is often worthless, just members of Congress preening and grandstanding, and isn't enough time to get deeply into anything. It's even worse when the members don't follow up on threads left hanging when the 5 minute time expired on a colleague, and so interesting lines of questions just get cut off. It's also obvious that many members do no prep, and are just reading questions written by a staffer and there is no follow up, because they don't even know why they are asking the question.

 

[Barnacle]

That's true but not in the way you imply. It was the first time attorneys had been allowed to question witnesses "UNDER RECENTLY PASSED COMMITTEE RULES".

Obviously since the rules were just passed, how could any attorney's question witnesses under those rules in the past, if they were not yet passed until just now? Are you trying to fool slow people?

It's a fact that attorney's question witness in congressional hearings throughout our history, it's established precedent, and was not contested until now.
- Iran Contra (30 years ago)
- Whitewater

Staff attorney's questioned witnesses in both cases, and there was no faux outrage then.

Despite William Barr’s objections, it’s normal for Congress’ staff to question witnesses.

Obviously you don't seem to know the difference between regular committees' staff attorneys and temporary hired-on outside consultants.

 

[Mach]

Obviously you don't seem to know the difference between regular committees' staff attorneys and temporary hired-on outside consultants.

Don't claim you know what I know Barnacle.

There is no difference according to House Rule...staff includes consultants/contractors. Your irrelevant claim was shot down during the meeting, if you watched it.

You really believe that Republican clown nonsense or did they fool you?

 

[Rexedgar]

Don't claim you know what I know Barnacle.

There is no difference according to House Rule...staff includes consultants/contractors. Your irrelevant claim was shot down during the meeting, if you watched it.

You really believe that Republican clown nonsense or did they fool you?

a Belieber!

 

[TomFitz]

I finally got around to watching a small part of the hearing. I came in when that Dem from GA was trying to pin Lewandowski down on some nonsense. Lewandowski wasn't having any part of it. Then, when the next Congressman...a Rep...was leading Lewandowski to make a statement about the Dems, Lee got upset at "being called an idiot". Nadler shut her down. That made me laugh.

This is going to be another failure by Nadler, but of course it'll be spun by the media to try to make Lewandowsky...and Trump...look bad. The rest of the useful idiots...the public who won't watch the hearing...will believe whatever the media tells them.

Trump apoligists are always trying to pretend that documented evidence of their hero’s graft and incompetence is “nonsense”.

Lewendowski put on the clown show that Trump wanted to see. He lied, lied about lying, claimed “privilege” that he has no legal claim to, and generally refused to obey the law, even as he was admitting to being an accessory to obstruction of justice.

At one point, he was accused of “stonewalling”.

Stonewalling seems to excite the Trump base, just the way it did for the Nixon crowd.

The thing is that all the stonewalling that the Nixon team did did not keep Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, et all out of jail.

 

[Mach]

a Belieber!

Here is the answer to your question about Congressional response to refusing to answer questions during questioning.
Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches - Lawfare
(Overitall submitted the link amusingly enough)

Looks like 2-3 options.
Refer to DOJ which we know Republicans will ignore.< - you mentioned this
Law suit and implore a judge to rule (which may again ultimately rely on DOJ once contempt has been cited?)
Congresses inherent power to jail - politically unlikely

Branches enjoy substantial power when not targeting other branches. They become a gory mess when contesting, that takes a long time at best, and the outcome if not in your favor, can harm the political cause even if you're arguably correct in the spirit of the claim...
So it's not the Democrats fault that they can't compel a witness, it's the system and the Trump administration doing whatever it wants, without their supporters checking it.

 

[TomFitz]

"new rules it past last week along party lines" means that the democrats on that committee who outnumber the republicans by 7 members (24 D vs 17R) voted themselves - on short notice - a rule for their benefit for that particular hearing.

If you can't win, just change the rules. :lol:

Uh, it isn’t as if this change was not well know, or that it was done in some sort of sneaky or secretive way.

That’s what the GOP Senate does, and what Trump tries to do.

I guess your AM radio only told you about that yesterday.

The rest of the world knew about it two weeks ago.

But then we don’t expect Trump apoligists to be up on current events.

 

[TomFitz]

Here is the answer to your question about Congressional response to refusing to answer questions during questioning.
Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches - Lawfare
(Overitall submitted the link amusingly enough)

Looks like 2-3 options.
Refer to DOJ which we know Republicans will ignore.< - you mentioned this
Law suit and implore a judge to rule (which may again ultimately rely on DOJ once contempt has been cited?)
Congresses inherent power to jail - politically unlikely

Branches enjoy substantial power when not targeting other branches. They become a gory mess when contesting, that takes a long time at best, and the outcome if not in your favor, can harm the political cause even if you're arguably correct in the spirit of the claim...
So it's not the Democrats fault that they can't compel a witness, it's the system and the Trump administration doing whatever it wants, without their supporters checking it.

It is the exact same showdown that Nixon’s people faced.

This time, Trump has tried to obstruct the investigation even before it actually started, and has been ever since. Yesterday, was a stonewalling show.

Nixon lost those battles, and the stonewallers all went to jail.

Trump is hoping to run the clock out on his term before the law catches up with him.

Oddly, the talk radio right applauds this disloyal, dishonest, and illegal behavior.

As if, getting away with something was an end in itself.

This is the most alarming thing about the Trump presidency, He has proven that a well developed cult of personality will convince a substantial portion of the population to set aside their own stated values and offer up democracy on a plate.

I will guarantee you that there are Trump supporters on this forum who will cheer the idea when Trump starts bellowing about staying in office dispite the election (which he will do).

Oh, and while it may seem politically unlikely that Congress will jail someone for refusal to testify, contempt of Congress works just like Contempt of Court, and they put Judith Miller in jail for that.

 

[Mach]

I will guarantee you that there are Trump supporters on this forum who will cheer the idea when Trump starts bellowing about staying in office dispute the election (which he will do).

There are over a hundred Trump faithful on this forum, and they all get caught routinely in lies, falsity, absurdity, and just stupid ****...day after day. None of that will change, that's a given.
We have seen over the past 3 years that there is no "bottom" to how low they will go.
There is no sufficient evidence that will make them admit Trump is incorrect on issues or claims.

Wasn't too long ago we had Southerners willing to kill other Americans in order to keep Human slaves...what, 150 years or so? That's not that long at all.
I suppose them supporting the orange nutter in the white house, and embracing lies and stupid, is an improvement historically?

 

[trouble13]

Why does it matter. The Congress establishes the rules for hearings like this. It's a privilege that every congress enjoys and allowing a "staff" member or consultant our outside lawyer isn't an abuse of any tradition or law. Congress routinely hires outsiders, including for questioning witnesses. Last time I'm aware of was when the Senate hired outside counsel to participate in the Kavanaugh hearings. That was like a whole year ago, so we're reaching way back in time, but the precedents are there.

He did a good job. My favorite part was him forcing Corey to admit that when he makes public appearances we can assume he's lying and then repeatedly pointing out that these things he's not allowed to discuss with Congress cause privilege!! he was free to write about and did write about extensively in his book.

Did you agree with nadler blocking collins from being the one to question him for the final 30 minutes?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

You're missing the point and I'll end it here because you're just mucking up the thread with this nonsense. Bottom line is there is nothing improper or even really notable about Congress establishing the rules for a hearing like this. It happens ALL.THE.TIME. And if Democrats want to allow outside counsel or staff or consultants to question a witness, they can do it, it's fine, normal, recent history confirms this. Does not matter who she questioned. What matters is the GOP set the rules and allowed her, outside counsel, to ask questions in that hearing.

Frankly IMO the Congress would work a lot better if they did this more often. The 5 minute stuff is often worthless, just members of Congress preening and grandstanding, and isn't enough time to get deeply into anything. It's even worse when the members don't follow up on threads left hanging when the 5 minute time expired on a colleague, and so interesting lines of questions just get cut off. It's also obvious that many members do no prep, and are just reading questions written by a staffer and there is no follow up, because they don't even know why they are asking the question.

I dont care that they used gave one of their top donors the privilege of getting a boner by questioning corey but i am curious if the objection raised by the Republicans was valid or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Trump apoligists are always trying to pretend that documented evidence of their hero’s graft and incompetence is “nonsense”.

Lewendowski put on the clown show that Trump wanted to see. He lied, lied about lying, claimed “privilege” that he has no legal claim to, and generally refused to obey the law, even as he was admitting to being an accessory to obstruction of justice.

At one point, he was accused of “stonewalling”.

Stonewalling seems to excite the Trump base, just the way it did for the Nixon crowd.

The thing is that all the stonewalling that the Nixon team did did not keep Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, et all out of jail.

It worked for Hillary

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Here’s hoping Corrupt Corey runs for the Senate in New Hampshire.

Apparently he is.

I hope Shaheen beats the **** out of him. I never in my life thought I was would vote for Jeanne Shaheen, but I'm doing it next year- especially if her opponent is that idiot Lewandowski.

 

[trouble13]

It is the exact same showdown that Nixon’s people faced.

This time, Trump has tried to obstruct the investigation even before it actually started, and has been ever since. Yesterday, was a stonewalling show.

Nixon lost those battles, and the stonewallers all went to jail.

Trump is hoping to run the clock out on his term before the law catches up with him.

Oddly, the talk radio right applauds this disloyal, dishonest, and illegal behavior.

As if, getting away with something was an end in itself.

This is the most alarming thing about the Trump presidency, He has proven that a well developed cult of personality will convince a substantial portion of the population to set aside their own stated values and offer up democracy on a plate.

I will guarantee you that there are Trump supporters on this forum who will cheer the idea when Trump starts bellowing about staying in office dispite the election (which he will do).

Oh, and while it may seem politically unlikely that Congress will jail someone for refusal to testify, contempt of Congress works just like Contempt of Court, and they put Judith Miller in jail for that.

Impeach him

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

I dont care that they used gave one of their top donors the privilege of getting a boner by questioning corey but i am curious if the objection raised by the Republicans was valid or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It isn’t. The Republicans knew the rules going into the hearing and Collins’ deranged ranting and raving like a baby because Nadler wouldn’t give him an extra 30 minutes in lieu of a staffer was not a legitimate response.

 

[JasperL]

Did you agree with nadler blocking collins from being the one to question him for the final 30 minutes?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Sure. Why not? He didn't qualify as 'staff' or anything else given he is a member of Congress.

 

[JasperL]

I dont care that they used gave one of their top donors the privilege of getting a boner by questioning corey but i am curious if the objection raised by the Republicans was valid or not.

The committee chair makes the rules, voted on by a majority of the committee. That happened. Where is the problem?

 

[Rexedgar]

Apparently he is.

I hope Shaheen beats the **** out of him. I never in my life thought I was would vote for Jeanne Shaheen, but I'm doing it next year- especially if her opponent is that idiot Lewandowski.

Lewandowski requested a recess; during the recess, he tweeted his hat in the ring!





Lewandowski promoted potential Senate run during impeachment hearing


That’s cojones......

 

[tres borrachos]

Lewandowski requested a recess; during the recess, he tweeted his hat in the ring!





Lewandowski promoted potential Senate run during impeachment hearing


That’s cojones......

He's a ****ing moron.

 

[trouble13]

The committee chair makes the rules, voted on by a majority of the committee. That happened. Where is the problem?

I dont know who is right but what the relublicans argued is that tje democrats violated their own rules. They argued that the lawyer was an independent contractor not staff.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Sure. Why not? He didn't qualify as 'staff' or anything else given he is a member of Congress.

The denifition of staff is what is in dispute but either way who cares if collins is staff or not. Why does it matter if he wuestioned corey or someone else does?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

I dont know who is right but what the relublicans argued is that tje democrats violated their own rules. They argued that the lawyer was an independent contractor not staff.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yeah, OK, I just don't see how this matters to anything. The committee chair with the majority make the rules. It's well known that's how it works in the House where the committee chair is like a little dictator, and the minority has no input. We saw this repeatedly when the GOP held the reins. Nothing has changed. Here the GOP could have appointed their own person to question Corey, and didn't. That's their problem, if it's a problem.