Bizarre, Congress, Criminal law, Politics

Lewandowski Refuses To Answer Post-Campaign Questions Before The House Intelligence Committee

 

The day after the dubious refusal of Steve Bannon to answer questions before the House Intelligence Committee, Corey Lewandowski refused to answer lawmakers’ questions after pledging to answer any and all questions.  Lewandowski said that he was not prepared to answer questions concerning the period following his campaign tenure.  That is not a recognized basis to refuse to answer congressional questions. It ranks with “my dog ate my notes” as a basis for remaining silent.  He can always answer questions by saying that he does not recall but the basis for refusing to answer is highly problematic.

In the interview the day before, Lewandowski insisted that he would answer every questions to “the best of my recollection” and looked forward to the opportunity.

That intent seemed to change once he got inside of the Committee room.

On this one, the members were right to be angry.  Lewandowski can always correct or augment his testimony. He can add caveat or declare no recollection. The one option that he does not have is to simply refuse to answer because he wants to think about it more.  Notably, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn also testified and did not refuse to answer such post-campaign questions.

Lewandowski could well face contempt sanctions for such a refusal to answer without a claim of privilege or invocation under the Fifth Amendment.  It is unlikely that he will produce such an action at this time, but he would be wise to come prepared to answer any and all questions on his return visit.

21 thoughts on “Lewandowski Refuses To Answer Post-Campaign Questions Before The House Intelligence Committee”

  1. Didn’t Lois Lerner et al. take the 5th to protect General Secretary Barry Soetoro or, by his nom de scene, Barack Obama.

  2. What is the national and ethnic origin of this Landowski person? Does he ski? Is he Norwegian? Is he Russian? Is he Haitian? Does he come from a shithole? Has he cleaned outhouses?

  3. but he would be wise to come prepared to answer any and all questions on his return visit.

    Or what? Now that he’s heard the questions or at least knows the line of questioning to expect, he’ll be more prepared to provide an answer? And If a witness then pleads the 5th, what is the next move for Congress? Isn’t this the path Lois Lerner went down? If I’m not mistaken, didn’t she retire with her full pension?

  4. I like the Dutch attitude, ‘You have to answer the question.’ Imagine the difference in calibre of representatives if they simply had to tell the truth under penalty of the most dire consequences if they perjure themselves. ‘I need time to prepare’ means time to figure out how to avoid telling the truth.

      1. Olly

        It sounds like you are bushwhacking without your glasses again. So, here’s a tidbit.

        ‘Scottish Diplomacy’

        One thing about blokes from Scotland is that their hearts and humour are always in the right place!

        Jimmy MacDonald, a City Councillor from Glasgow, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.
        His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

        HIS STATEMENT:

        “If hooking up one rag-head terrorist’s testicles to a car battery gets the truth out of the lying little camel shagger to save just one Scottish soldier’s life, then I have only three things to say; Red is positive, Black is negative and make sure his nuts are wet.”

        I cannot argue with Jimmy. It’s all about direction. Don’t abuse the activity. Make sure it gets results. Don’t get caught. Because, is it worth one Scottish soldier’s life?

        Now, Olly, put on your glasses, reload, and send across another salvo.

        1. LOL! So you double-down. Good for you.

          It’s all about direction. Don’t abuse the activity. Make sure it gets results. Don’t get caught. Because, is it worth one Scottish soldier’s life?

          I believe they were also looking for truth in 17th century Salem, MA.

          Triple-down?

  5. The public has no respect for the current Congress. It’s doubtful that those who are called to testify have any more respect for that body than the general public has. Between corporate donations controlling electons, the need to spend several hours a day fundraising for the next campaign, gerrymandered districts, and the incompetence of most of those who want to run for office, they don’t seem to deserve much respect.

    1. So therefore a witness does not need to answer questions, if he or she doesn’t feel like it?

  6. Given the level of sanction levied against former officials’ evasiveness in their testimonies before Congress, a threat from members of a committee to prosecute a contempt of congress charge has little significance and nearly no deterrent.

    One might wonder if faced a rebuke from an ordinary citizen subpoenaed to testify, Congress instead prosecuted this person with the utmost zeal and resolve.

  7. I can see it now. The last lesson of the last civics class in the USA. “How to testify before Congress.”

    1. I’m reminded of jury duty. ‘truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’ The Judge and the two attorneys are always the first to ensure a witness volates that juror’s oath. In the Congress the despicably pitiful act of Camel Nose Harris was a perfect example in one trained in oath breaking.

    2. Michael Aarethun – I think two new compulsory chapters. 1) testifying before Congress 2) being interviewed by the FBI

  8. Hopefully Devin Nunes now understands that he did the bidding for the wrong person..and that his obligation to Congress transcends……

      1. And one often can find it if they set their sights high enough it’s really not all that uncommon.

    2. He has no obligation to Congress. He has two public obligations. One to the Constitution and the others to his constituents..And that’s and end to it. He has one personal obligation. To his own moral values.
      Now as to Congress I see no problem with his actions in discharging his duties and in so doing his obligations but even then it extends only to the people who selected him …. and that is not the entire Congress.

      On the other side of the aisle it’s a much easier choice. No moral values to get in the way, no allegiance to country much less the Constitution and no obligation to Congress as a result only to The Party.

      Other side is slippery term as the other side begins with Republicans in Name Only and contineus to Bernie Sanders. or some similar representative of that ideologies ruling class.

  9. Eric Holder taught us all how to testify before Congress. They are paper-tigers.

    1. Still got a warrant out for him or more properly a detain on sight order south of the border.

    2. Paul, don’t forget Clapper!

      Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

      Clapper: “No, sir.”

      Wyden: “It does not?”

      Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

Comments are closed.