Nadler considering holding Lewandowski in contempt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that he is considering moving to hold Corey Lewandowski in contempt after the former Trump campaign chairman declined to answer a series of questions related to his appearances in former special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

"Mr. Lewandowski, your behavior in this hearing room has been completely unacceptable. It is part of a pattern of a White House desperate for the American people not to hear the truth," Nadler said after committee members concluded their questioning.

"I’ve been asked several times today whether the committee will hold you in contempt. It is certainly under consideration," Nadler said, to which Lewandowski raised his eyebrows and pursed his lips.

But despite the frustration that steamed from the Judiciary hearing room, Democrats say their real focus is on the man in the Oval Office.

Nadler telegraphed this outlook by describing the White House limiting Lewandowski's testimony as "a far more troubling contempt on display today."

"There is a far more troubling contempt on display today, and that is President Trump’s role in your refusal to answer questions," Nadler said. "The pattern of obstruction laid out in the Mueller report has not stopped."

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/461840-nadler-holding-lewandowski-in-contempt-is-under-consideration#.XYFlDys-p8Q.twitter

Lock him up!!!

[pbmus]

1. Contempt...then pardon...so what...

[Maraya1969]

13. It is a start and IQQ45 pardoning him, (if he can.....) will look really bad.

[napi21]

2. I HOPE he does! I appologize to myfellow DUers for saying he didn't do anything considered

contempt today. I was WRONG! I really hope he's held in contempt AND PUNISHED with whatever the harshest sentence is.

[mainstreetonce]

3. Shouldn't it be one more count

If Trump obstructing justice?

[still_one]

4. Don't consider it. Do it!!!

[lunasun]

5. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Exactly. Why does he have to wait? Does he have

To get approval from someone? The majority? Or can a chairman make that call on their own?

[OliverQ]

6. Why is he just "considering" it?

This is the problem people have with Dems. They refuse to hold all these criminals accountable and that's why they're all defying subpoenas.

Nadler and Pelosi need to start using Inherent contempt. The Sergeant at Arms needs drag people like Lewandowski to jail and keep him there until he answers questions and stops behaving like an arrogant jerk.

I just feel like this country is over at this point. Republicans are destroying Democracy and Dems are just asking them nicely to play by the rules.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Among another things, he needs to take the temperature of the larger body

and consult with House Counsel.

He can't hold him in contempt by himself but will need a vote of the house to do it. It would have been crazy for him to state on the spot that he would pursue contempt charges only to find he doesn't have the votes.

That said, I'm not sure a contempt charge could prevail since he did show up and answer questions

They also got what they needed out of him and managed to do it while also showing him to be a complete ass. They may decide to make an example of someone else especially given the shakiness of a contempt charge in this instance

[FBaggins]

50. Actually... I think that's partially wrong too

Back in June, the House delegated contempt authority to the committee to speed things up, didn’t it?

I agree it might not be likely (take too long to get it up and back and then re-ask the questions... but it could be worth doing just to add one more stain.

[StarfishSaver]

54. I forgot about that delegation of authority. But he still needs to make sure he has support before

moving forward. And I just don't know of Lewandowski is worth it. Much better to focus on the people who didn't show up at all in a clear show of contempt.

They could go either way. It if they decide not to pursue contempt charges against him, that's a perfectly rational and justifiable course of action - but that probably won't stop some people on our side from smearing them for being weak, giving in, having no backbone, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

59. Clarification

I went back and reviewed the authority granted to Judiciary and other committees, and, while it gives them the authority to go to court to enforce a subpoena without getting a full House vote, it doesn't allow them to fast track the process under the House's inherent contempt power.

That means if the Judiciary Committee finds Lewandowski in contempt, they can go straight to court to enforce the subpoena without first taking the measure to the floor. But Nadler had no power to order him arrested on the spot and dragged out in handcuffs, as some here demanded he do. Any exercise of Congress's inherent contempt authority still has to go through the regular and rather protracted process, including a vote by the full House.

[FBaggins]

60. Sorry. I thought that was assumed

Yes... just the authority to seek civil contempt without running home for permission each time. I didn't check, but I assume that it also lacks permission to make a criminal referral to DOJ.

FYI - the much more interesting legal topic of the day is the Schiff/DNI issue. I think we might have a chance to deal with an executive signing statement conflict over whether the whistleblower statute can be enforced with contempt

[StarfishSaver]

61. Yes, I figure you were aware of it but didn't want anyone else to be confused

[trueblue2007]

11. I AGREE WITH YOU ..... Dems need to grow some balls and use them

[StarfishSaver]

20. You think they haven't held him on contempt yet because they don t have "balls"?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Totally agree. Move on this immediately. If he has i's

to dot, dot them tonight!

[lindysalsagal]

48. I just had a post removed for saying exactly that. They're wimping out.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Oh yeah. I'm sure that Axe Body Spray bottle in human form

is quaking in his loafers.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Considering? Do it and put him in jail!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. +1.

[lame54]

10. If he's got the goods - do it...

Enough of this considering

[Maraya1969]

12. YES! This would be a first step to show the Dems are not going to be played with. Now that Nadler

has said this I do not think anything else is acceptable.

If he does nothing he will get nothing from the other witnesses.

Oh God please!!! Use your spines please!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. Good point. Set the prescedent NOW.

[world wide wally]

14. Just do it

[BigmanPigman]

15. DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

[Ilsa]

16. Fine him the max.

The AG tries anyone charged with messy with Congress (per O'Donnell show), so just fine them because they love money so much.

[djacq]

17. Without Consequences,

Trump and his Stooges will keep stressing our Democratic Institutions.

[EveHammond13]

18. Just do it. See twitter rant from @TheRickWilson earlier today.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. I posted it. I do think it got a LOT better with a real atty tho. nt

[MontanaMama]

19. He must be held in contempt.

Sure he’s been promised a pardon...but make those assholes jump through hoops at least. Charge him. If Nadler doesn’t, how will he or this process be taken seriously?

[StarfishSaver]

22. A contempt charge against Lewandowski isn't a slam dunk

And the Democrats got what they needed out of him. One of the considerations will surely be whether charging him with contempt positively affect the outcome they're seeking or if it would be a distraction without a benefit.

It's possible that the better course of action would be to leave Lewandowski on the trashheap of humiliation he got thrown on today and make an example of one of the bigger fish - e.g., McGahn or Barr.

[MontanaMama]

24. Are either one of them a slam dunk?

Please know I’m not arguing with you...I’m genuinely curious. Do we only level contempt charges when we know it’ll be a sure thing?

[StarfishSaver]

38. They should level contempt charges if they think the benefits are worth the effort

If we walk through it, I don't see the value in it other than to make a point.

Contempt is designed to force people to comply with a subpoena of congressional request. Lewandowski actually complied with the subpoena by showing up. Once he got there, he refused to answer some of their questions on the basis of executive privilege. But that's not contempt since it's appropriate for a witness to refuse to testify once executive privilege is invoked. Remember, Lewandowski didn't invoke the privilege - it's not his privilege to invoke. And once it's invoked, he has no ability to waive it. The committee's beef about executive privilege is with the White House, not Lewandowski.

So the only area for a contempt charge is the way he answered questions not supposed covered by executive privilege. And he answered most of them. His answers were obnoxious and rude, and sometimes evasive, but he answered. It's hard to level a contempt charge based on a witness answering questions like a jerk.

On the other hand, what good would a contempt charge do? They got everything they needed out of his testimony, so holding him in contempt wouldn't drag more information out of him. It might make an example for others, but that can be done with other witnesses.

So, as I said, starting a contempt proceeding against Lewandowski is not necessarily a slam dunk.

[MontanaMama]

41. Thank you very much for waking me through that.

Big picture. I get it.

[StarfishSaver]

42. ...

Let's also remember the resources and attention a contempt citation would require -resolutions, debates, votes, lawyers, pleadings, court appearances, etc. It's a huge drain, probably without much return ...

[MontanaMama]

43. Gotcha.

I don’t know how you know what you know SfS but I appreciate your insight. DU never ceases to amaze me in terms of who rumbles around our campus.

[StarfishSaver]

44. :-)

You're very kind.

[lindysalsagal]

49. And so nothing is done. Nothing changes. Rinse. Repeat.

[StarfishSaver]

53. That's not at all what I said.

But that's what you believe and your belief seems very firm, so I'm not going to waste time trying to reason with you.

[FBaggins]

52. One other possible "return"

He could be re-elected. Might be nice to get an eventual ruling that advice and counsel or communication privilege doesn’t include people outside of the administration.

[StarfishSaver]

55. Good point.

But they might be able to do that with someone else since it's likely they'll invoke the privilege with regard to others outside of the administration.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Amen!!! If Nadler doesn't every witness that's a trump

pal will do the same thing!

[bringthePaine]

21. STEP 1:send a message via prosecution for contempt requiring money and detention

STEP 2: wallow slowly and happily in the tears of limp rage that follow🤣
the inevitable pardon is simply further evidence for public consumption;
the Brits have a wonderful, apt term for this process, which they
call "winding them up"; perfect opportunity to begin a campaign
to monopolize the Know-Nothings' comm efforts with issues of our
choosing...

[cstanleytech]

23. Long as Barr heads the DOJ I doubt he will do anything which is why his hand should be forced and

the Democrats need to take it to court and have a judge order the DOJ to do its job.

[bottomofthehill]

46. Slow walk it

Let the Chairman make the charge, take some time, let the committee investigate and then vote, bring the vote to the full House, her to about Convention time next summer and let him realize that a Democratic President may appoint an attorney general after the election that may throw you in Jail for a year and face a big fine with no possibility of a pardon.... then bring him back and ask follow up and further questions when there is the possibility of a consequence.

[cstanleytech]

56. Unless Trump issues pardons to protect them for breaking the law which according to reports he has

said he would do which should not be allowed as he is in fact committing a crime himself and I doubt the founders intended the pardon powers to be abused to allow a president to order people to commit multiple felonies.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Just add that to the obstruction of justice charged

Just because he has the power to do it doesn't mean he can use that power to obstruct justice, which is clearly the case here.

[bottomofthehill]

47. Rush it to the AG now and get no results

[hay rick]

25. Lewandowsky's obstruction needs to be identified for what it is- criminal behavior.

Not charging him accepts his stonewalling, lies under oath, and baseless claim of executive privilege as acceptable and legal behavior. if there are no consequences for Lewandowski, no other witness will feel compelled to testify truthfully.

[CanonRay]

26. F'ing do it already

The time to play hardball is long past.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. +1. Enough already! DO something to counter this

Crap

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Stop with the talk... just do it already!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[NCLefty]

29. Does that even accomplish anything? Republicans held Holder in contempt and then... nothing happened

"After the House voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Holder’s No. 2, issued a letter to the House stating: 'The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.'"

Guess who appointed the current DAG? Wheee...

Wake me when something actually happens. :/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Don't consider it; just fucking do it.

[Generic Brad]

36. Consider it done

Come on, Chairman Nader! Drop the hammer already.

[Iggo]

40. He's beginning to get ready to think about possibly doing something about it?

Wow!

[Amaryllis]

45. Why would he NOT hold him in contempt? Seems like a no-brainer. Am i missiing something?

[Hoyt]

51. Do it. rather than tell us you are considering it.

[Pisces]

57. What the hell is there to consider?? The contempt was glaring for

All to see. He took the Dems for a ride. We look weak as hell. He should have been hauled to jail in front of the cameras!! Where are our political stunts?? We keep acting surprised every time they don’t comply or adhere to standard norms!! We are living in upside down world

[StarfishSaver]

63. "Where are our political stunts?"

You think engaging in political stunts would make us look stronger?

[Pisces]

64. Anything is better than looking like Charlie Brown

[Joe941]

58. Lewandowski was making a mockery of the system.

A total disgrace.