Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 17, 2019

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on possible obstruction of Robert Mueller's investigation by the president. Corey Lewandowski, the president's former campaign manager, was slated to testify.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Only difference ace is there was a confession and evidence on the blue dress.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-17 02:28 PM | Reply

Pleasepleaseplease watch our kindasortamaybe Impeachment investigation!

-Nadler and the MSMDNC

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lewandowski is refusing to testify citing Presidential Privelege even though he never worked for the President while he was President. He could land in jail. Of course though Trump could just pardon him.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 02:50 PM | Reply

He could land in jail.

It's not a criminal proceeding, so no, he won't.

Unless and until Nadler starts a formal Impeachment Inquiry under House Rules, this is and remains a civil proceeding, and any contempt proceeding is civil in nature. Congress can find him in contempt like they did with Barr and Holder, but look at how effective that was.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 03:10 PM | Reply

Corey is a dbag.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 03:22 PM | Reply

A white male power display.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-09-17 04:04 PM | Reply

--#6 | POSTED BY FRESNO500

White folk!

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Pleasepleaseplease watch our kindasortamaybe Impeachment investigation!

-Nadler and the MSMDNC

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter

Why dont the dems go ahead and impeach?
-ROC

Dems are just doing this for attention!
-also ROC

History will make every trump defending moron like you look like fools.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 05:58 PM | Reply

"History will make every trump defending moron like you look like fools.

#8 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Those who don't impeach Trump support him

#9 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 06:00 PM | Reply

Mr. President, if you have nothing to hide why are you always telling people not to testify. If there is nothing wrong with your tax returns, why don't you show them and shut people up. I just don't understand why you would do so many stupid things that make you look guilty. I also don't understand why one of the people who works for you doesn't take you aside and say, "Mr. President, if you would just shut up, you'll get reelected."

#10 | Posted by rukiddin at 2019-09-17 06:02 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Lock him up! Lock him up!

#11 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-17 06:29 PM | Reply

They have everything they need to prosecute Trump. They won't do it. Dithering Democrats complain about losing. They do nothing out of fear of being unpopular. I have no use for losers. Neither does America.

#12 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-17 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#10

No one stops Trump. It's the same reason Hitler ran roughshod over Europe. No one stopped him until he made a mistake. Trump makes mistakes everyday. Democrats do nothing.

#13 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-17 07:04 PM | Reply

Those who don't impeach Trump support him

#9 | Posted by goatman

More than half of democrats in congress are on board. And zero republicans. So mathematically dems are already infinitely superior.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 07:06 PM | Reply

They have everything they need to prosecute Trump. They won't do it. Dithering Democrats complain about losing. They do nothing out of fear of being unpopular. I have no use for losers. Neither does America.

#12 | Posted by lee_the_agent

So you choose courageous and evil over cowardly and ethical. Got it.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 07:07 PM | Reply

"Democrats do nothing.

#13 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT"

It's been a mantra of mine as well. The Democrats are cowards. Why anyone would vote for such a flock of cowards and allow a president to run roughshod is beyond me.

They bitch, bitch, bitch, sure. But talk is cheap. Where are the cojones to take Trump down. "Oh, we are afraid we might lose."

--------. Just do it.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 07:08 PM | Reply

Just heard Nadler make a sternly worded statement about maybe holding this worm in contempt.
Stop with that and take action!

#17 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-17 07:09 PM | Reply

"More than half of democrats in congress are on board. And zero republicans. So mathematically dems are already infinitely superior.

#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-17 07:06 PM |"

Lame.

You vote for cowards, then. Damn the math. Do the right thing! If they lose, they lose. But at least they will have shown the country they are more than just talking heads. Also, Trump will look a lot worse in 2020. That shouldn't even have to be said it is so obvious.

The Dems in Congress

www.cornucopia.org

#18 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 07:13 PM | Reply

So you choose courageous and evil over cowardly and ethical. Got it.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-17 07:07 PM | REPLY

You can't be ethical and be a coward. It doesn't work that way.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 07:15 PM | Reply

You can't be ethical and be a coward. It doesn't work that way.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr

You can be a good person but be too scared to act. That's not comparable to being a courageous bad person who harms others on purpose.

A guy who doesn't stop a mugging is not equal to a mugger.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 07:17 PM | Reply

You vote for cowards, then. Damn the math. Do the right thing!
#18 | Posted by goatman

So you're on record saying impeachment is the right thing then.

Yet you support a party in which ZERO people want to do the right thing instead of a party where more than half do.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 07:19 PM | Reply

"So you're on record saying impeachment is the right thing then."

I've said it all along. I'm very consistent with that. If he's done something wrong, impeach him. But you have proven to have very selective reading and like snoofy you like to turn my words into something I didn't say.

"Yet you support a party..."

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-17 07:19 PM

You're a liar. I do not support any political party -- at least in federal elections. Smaller jurisdictions I tend to, however. Except mayoral races of course because they are apolitical in Texas. Again, something I've said many times yet for some reason you still puke out that lie.

Why do you lie so much?

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 07:28 PM | Reply

"More than half of democrats in congress are on board. And zero republicans. So mathematically dems are already infinitely superior.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

The imposition of justice is not based on concensus. Well, it shouldn't be but cowardly dems think so. The might lose, but they will be bigger losers if they can't administer justice as per our Consitution.

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 07:31 PM | Reply

#8

There is a HUGE difference between starting a Formal Impeachment Inquiry under House rules with criminal subpoena power and this clusterfcck that is essentially powerless.

But you knew that, right?

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 08:34 PM | Reply

If he's done something wrong, impeach him.

#22 | Posted by goatman

Even using the word IF is defending him. The evidence has been in your face for years. Pretending there is any question or debate about it is another form of trump support.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 08:37 PM | Reply

Lol

Shreekshysteria is the epitome of the DNC "guilty until proven innocent" mindset.

Why don't you call your Congresscritter and demand the commencement of a Formal Impeachment Inquiry, that is the ONLY way your dreams will come true.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Even using the word IF is defending him.

#25 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

LOL Unbelievable. No, using the word "if" is saying I don't know if he's guilty or not.

Thank you for proving my point you are incapable of being objective.

#27 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 08:40 PM | Reply

The imposition of justice is not based on concensus. Well, it shouldn't be but cowardly dems think so.
#23 | Posted by goatman

Tell us how you feel about the republicans who sold out all their values to avoid angering trump's base of morons. If consensus isn't important, what is stopping every single republican from doing the right thing? You see cowards everyone except in your own party.

You can whine about democrats not resisting trump enough when you decide to offer proportional whining about republicans doing the same thing but far far worse.

Democrats aren't pursuing the right thing aggressively enough and they get your nonstop whining.

Republicans HELPING trump and BLOCKING dems from doing the right thing... not a peep from goat4trump.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 08:40 PM | Reply

Pretending there is any question or debate about it is another form of trump support.
#25 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You don't even have a majority of house dems supporting impeachment,

...much less a majority of the public. In fact, last I saw something like 67% were against it.

That's not "Trump support", that's just reality.

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-17 08:42 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly is a huge proponent of "guilty unless proven innocent", unless of course the subject is a democrat.

I've never met anyone as hypocritical, double standard, "Do as I say, not as I do" person as speaksoftly. It must suck to be so mind controlled and incapable of independent thought.

But people like her serve a purpose in that they are always screaming, "Don't be iike me!"

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 08:45 PM | Reply

"Even using the word IF is defending him.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-17 08:37 PM "

No, using the word "if" means I am impartial and do not know if he is guilty of any malfeasance or not. That is a very telling post, right there, speaksoftly.

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 08:49 PM | Reply

You don't even have a majority of house dems supporting impeachment,

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Wanna bet? A thousand dollars? A million? Better yet - if a majority of house dems support impeachment will you sign off and never return?

Stand up and prove you believe the things you post.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 09:02 PM | Reply

No, using the word "if" means I am impartial

#31 | Posted by goatman

now that is adorable.

A guy who never posts a bad word about republicans and attacks dems all day is impartial.

Youre a moron.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, using the word "if" means I am impartial
#31 | Posted by goatman
now that is adorable.
A guy who never posts a bad word about republicans and attacks dems all day is impartial.
Youre a moron.

#33 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

I stand by my point. If means I do not go one way or the other in establishing guilt.

Sadly, you have made up your mind even without a trial.

Thanks again for proving my point.

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:08 PM | Reply

"Youre a moron.
#33 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.'

Socrates.

Thank you for continuing to hand me victories.

And BTW, the number one rule of blogging is that if you are going to descend into sophomoric name calling is that you should at least spell it right. It should be "you're a moron", not "youre a moron".

You're welcome!

LOL

#35 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:13 PM | Reply

The DR has gotten incredibly stupid tonight.

I think I'll take in a movie.

Hasta manana amigos mios!

(and go for the predictible "you made it so" remarks, my foregone conclusion folks)

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:19 PM | Reply

Watched portions. Very entertaining. Nadler is a fool. Good to have everyone see this.

#37 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-09-17 10:55 PM | Reply

Better to have everyone see the end of it. Lewandowski didn't fare well at all.
He got his ass handed to him and looked like an absolute scum bag.

#38 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 11:13 PM | Reply

Why are those involved with Pres Trump so afraid of testifying truthfully?

Why is Pres Trump so afraid of people of his campaign and administration testifying truthfully that he actively prevents them from doing so?


Why is Pres Trump so afraid of the truth being told?

#39 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 11:13 PM | Reply

Why does lamplighter ask so many leading, rhetorical questions with unproven premises?

Who knows.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 11:19 PM | Reply

Unproven?

BWHAHHAAAAAHAAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

#41 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 11:20 PM | Reply

-- He got his ass handed to him and looked like an absolute scum bag.

Those are just DNC talking points.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 11:21 PM | Reply

Unproven?
BWHAHHAAAAAHAAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

POSTED BY YAV AT 2019-09-17 11:20 PM | REPLY

Unproven my hiney!!!!!!!!!

#43 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 11:22 PM | Reply

#42 - I watched it, dummy.
I haven't heard anything from anyone else on it, and I haven't watched any news. That is what I saw. He was pathetic at the end of the hearings.

#44 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 11:24 PM | Reply

--The DR has gotten incredibly stupid tonight.

I think I'll take in a movie."

Very wise, G-Man. Anything in particular? Have you seen the film version of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron? Recommended.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 11:25 PM | Reply

@#40 ... Why does lamplighter ask so many leading, rhetorical questions with unproven premises? ...

I do not accept your premise.

The questions are not rhetorical. I have a curious mind. :)

Do you know the answer to any of the questions I asked?


#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 11:33 PM | Reply

Those are worthless questions and you know it. I don't play snoofy games.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 11:44 PM | Reply

Corey abused these Dems. It just goes to show how dumb the Dems are. Corey made them look like foolish children.

#48 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 11:47 PM | Reply

@#47 ... Those are worthless questions and you know it. ...

For starters, you have absolutely no idea what I know and what I do not know. Zero idea. That you use that as your opening approach to what I ask tells a lot. Quite a lot.

Your inability to answer a question does not negate the question.


#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 11:53 PM | Reply

"For starters, you have absolutely no idea what I know and what I do not know
#49 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER "

Heuristics dictates it is safe to assume 'do not know' when making assumptions about your knowledge of any topic.

#50 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 11:56 PM | Reply

Well if you don't know those are worthless questions, you're stupid. Those questions are like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife, with no evidence that he ever beat his wife.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 11:56 PM | Reply

@#51 ... Well if you don't know those are worthless questions, you're stupid.

'Tis a shame your comments are reduced to an ad hominem attack.

#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-18 12:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't play snoofy games. Bye.

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-18 12:06 AM | Reply

@#53 ... Bye.

Have a good night.

#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-18 12:20 AM | Reply

Have nothing to hide why not testify?

Think why it's a right to not testify.

#55 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-18 07:01 AM | Reply

More than half of democrats in congress are on board. And zero republicans. So mathematically dems are already infinitely superior. - #14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-17 07:06 PM
Your data set is faulty.
You are claiming, without evidence, that a majority of the Democrats in the Senate would support impeachment while at the same time you are claiming, again without evidence, that every Republican in the Senate would oppose impeachment. Making claims without evidence is called lying these days.
You're lying to yourself and to us.

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 09:14 AM | Reply

Since Corey says he has no obligation to tell the truth to the media, and since a large number of Republicans seem to think that's OK, then I suppose Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman ...." lie is no longer of any consequence. I look forward to never again hearing Sean Hannity recite that quote in his lame Clinton voice.

#57 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 09:21 AM | Reply

Why are those involved with Pres Trump so afraid of testifying truthfully?
They are merely showing their support of the Obama administrations claims that Presidential aides are completely immune to Congress' subpoenas.
www.cbsnews.com
Personally I am glad to see the President stand up and affirm something that the previous, opposition party engaged in. Taking real concrete steps to bridge the divides that have been growing in our nation.
Unlike that kid in concentration camp stuff. I really wish that this administration would have stopped following in the previous administration's footprint of keeping kids in concentration camps.

Why is Pres Trump so afraid of people of his campaign and administration testifying truthfully that he actively prevents them from doing so?
Pres Trump seems to be a big advocate in the separation of powers concept. So much so that he's willing to demonstrate that the legislative does not have the powers that they are trying to exert. It may be a painful lesson for the members of the legislative who will no-doubt whine and cry that they are being prevented from doing whatever they like. Oh well.

Why is Pres Trump so afraid of the truth being told?
I haven't seen any evidence of this. It seems to me more of a case of the question poser projecting their beliefs onto the target instead of realizing that there are other, reasonable and lawful reasons for Trump to have engaged in this behavior other than being afraid of the truth coming out. The original question is about as honest as asking someone when they stopped hitting their wife.

#39 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 11:13 PM

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 09:42 AM | Reply

Since Corey says he has no obligation to tell the truth to the media, and since a large number of Republicans seem to think that's OK, then I suppose Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman ...." lie is no longer of any consequence. I look forward to never again hearing Sean Hannity recite that quote in his lame Clinton voice.
#57 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 09:21 AM |

Do you understand that there is a difference between Lewandowski,an unelected nobody, misleading reporters (also unelected nobodies) and Bill Clinton, the elected president, lying under oath to a judge and jury to obstruct justice?
Even if you can't see the difference, why do you care what Republicans think about Clinton's perjury? What do -you- feel about a president lying under oath to obstruct justice?

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 09:57 AM | Reply

Do you understand that there is a difference between Lewandowski,an unelected nobody, misleading reporters (also unelected nobodies) and Bill Clinton, the elected president, lying under oath to a judge and jury to obstruct justice?
Even if you can't see the difference, why do you care what Republicans think about Clinton's perjury? What do -you- feel about a president lying under oath to obstruct justice?

#59 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-09-18 09:57 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Your question would be better directed to the White House than to me. They instructed Lewandowski not to testify about certain subjects on the basis of executive privilege. You may think he's an unelected nobody. The White House, conveniently, disagrees with you.

I'm opposed to lying, generally, under oath or not. When it's under oath, there can be legal consequences. Since you brought up the subject, Robert Mueller concluded Trump's sworn answers to written interrogatories were generally inadequate, incomplete, and untruthful. As I great lover of the truth from presidents, I assume you support Trump's impeachment for lying under oath.

#60 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 10:02 AM | Reply

Are you new here or do you just not pay any attention? We've been calling for Trump's impeachment for months. Me among that 'we'.

Why on earth would I ask the White House what Anon's opinion is on Bill Clinton lying under oath to obstruct justice or whether or not Anton even understands that there is a difference between Lewandowski and Clinton? That doesn't even begin to make sense. I'm sure you just neglected to respond to the question.

A coward would just deflect and dodge. It's what they do. You're not a coward, are you?

#61 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 11:18 AM | Reply

A coward would just deflect and dodge. It's what they do. You're not a coward, are you?

#61 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-09-18 11:18 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Please explain the legal basis for the White House's assertion of executive privilege for Corey Lewandowski. The distinction you are attempting to make between Lewandowski and Clinton makes no sense in light of this assertion if your reason for making it is to excuse Lewandowski's dishonesty.

#62 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 11:27 AM | Reply

Anton,

Here is a pretty good read regarding this very issue - whether or not Trump can assert Executive Privilege here. The writer removes Trump from the equation and provides his analysis from a separation of powers standpoint.

www.nationalreview.com

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 11:36 AM | Reply

Anton,
Here is a pretty good read regarding this very issue - whether or not Trump can assert Executive Privilege here. The writer removes Trump from the equation and provides his analysis from a separation of powers standpoint.
www.nationalreview.com

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-18 11:36 AM | REPLY

It's replete with references to Trump and Andrew C McCarthy is a right winged hack job. Just saying.

#64 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-18 11:47 AM | Reply

#62 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 11:27 AM
My...what a dodge.
I haven't excused Lewandowski's dishonesty. I've questioned your apparent hypocrisy.
You, being the one who brought Clinton into the conversation, appear to by a hypocrite. I gave you the opportunity to let us know that you are not the hypcrite that you appear to be.
When given that opportunity to show that you aren't a hypocrite, you dodged and deflected instead.

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 12:01 PM | Reply

Clinton lied. Lying is wrong. Lying to the press is wrong.
I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't like him.

Now, please provide the explanation for your distinction without a difference.

#66 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 12:06 PM | Reply

It's replete with references to Trump and Andrew C McCarthy is a right winged hack job. Just saying.

#64 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You obviously barely even looked at it, here is the key part that you obviously missed:

Let's take Trump out of the equation (since he seems to have a strange effect on the analytical powers of usually sensible people). If some future Democratic president phoned Henry Kissinger to consult on China policy or the most efficient structure of the State Department, I believe those communications would be covered by executive privilege even though Dr. Kissinger is not a government official.

Everything that followed what I just reproduced is simple analysis of Executive Privilege.

As for McCarthy, he's a former prosecutor who has appeared before congress on multiple occasions due to his expertise.

Anyhow, I provided the link for Anton because it's a pretty solid analysis and Anton has always struck me as pretty open-minded much the opposite of yourself who couldn't be more close-minded if you tried.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 12:08 PM | Reply

Jeff,

My point is simply that if the privilege applies, or even just arguably applies, it means that Lewandowski is not just an "unelected nobody" as a previous poster claimed.

#68 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 12:41 PM | Reply

Now, please provide the explanation for your distinction without a difference. - #66 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 12:06 PM
My distinction without a difference between what and what?
Feel free to quote it.

#69 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 12:55 PM | Reply

My point is simply that if the privilege applies, or even just arguably applies, it means that Lewandowski is not just an "unelected nobody" as a previous poster claimed.

#68 | POSTED BY ANTON

Okay. Admittedly I haven't followed this thread closely. I thought the discussion surrounded whether or not Trump could plausibly claim Executive Privilege in regards to conversations with Lewandowski so I provided a link that I felt would assist the discussion as it provided a very nuanced explanation.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:03 PM | Reply

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:03 PM
The flow of the conversation began with Anton's #57 trying to equate Lewandowski, an unelected nobody, admitting to feeling no need to be honest with the media (more unelected nobodies) with President Bill Clinton's lie under oath to obstruct justice - an illegal act. As if somehow those were even in the ball-park of similar.

#71 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 01:13 PM | Reply

"As if somehow those were even in the ball-park of similar."

Gotta keep the Clinton deflections in play, regadless of how weak they are.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-18 01:16 PM | Reply

If Lewandowski is an unelected "nobody", there is no privilege.
If he is covered, then his false statements are just as significant as those if any other member of the executive branch

For what it's worth, Clinton wasn't under oath when he lied at a press conference. That is the statement I mentioned, not lying to a grand jury. I think both are wrong. One is actually illegal.

This shouldn't be difficult.

#73 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 01:25 PM | Reply

This shouldn't be difficult.

It's difficult because it isn't difficult. It's in conflict.

This is cognitive dissonance in full view.

#74 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-18 01:33 PM | Reply

If Lewandowski is an unelected "nobody", there is no privilege.
If he is covered, then his false statements are just as significant as those if any other member of the executive branch
For what it's worth, Clinton wasn't under oath when he lied at a press conference. That is the statement I mentioned, not lying to a grand jury. I think both are wrong. One is actually illegal.
This shouldn't be difficult.
#73 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 01:25 PM

The President's discussions even with a nobody are subject to his (or her) exertion of privilege. Did you not even bother to read the article that was linked? A random person calling a president, the president can exert privilege over that conversation. That doesn't convert that random person into a member of the executive branch or attach any special importance or meaning to that random person. He's still a random, nobody.

You're correct about the sexual relations statement. I apologize for conflating that with Clinton's perjury.

#75 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 01:46 PM | Reply

that link is crazy-town written in a hurry (yesterday) to rationalize a whacky overreach of executive privilege. Wow.

#76 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-18 02:08 PM | Reply

B.S.

Every conversation the president has " with just anybody" is not privileged just because he says it is. Typically the privilege is to encourage free flow of information between the president and his aides. Similar rationale applies for the physician-patient privilege, the attorney-client privilege, etc. Advisors might be less likely to provide difficult advice and/or discuss controversial topics if they believe they are likely to be called into court to testify.

However, whether the privilege applies in this instance or not, lying is generally wrong, especially by public officials and their advisors.

#77 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 02:13 PM | Reply

B.S.
Every conversation the president has " with just anybody" is not privileged just because he says it is. Typically the privilege is to encourage free flow of information between the president and his aides. Similar rationale applies for the physician-patient privilege, the attorney-client privilege, etc. Advisors might be less likely to provide difficult advice and/or discuss controversial topics if they believe they are likely to be called into court to testify.

However, whether the privilege applies in this instance or not, lying is generally wrong, especially by public officials and their advisors.
#77 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 02:13 PM

Yes, the President can exert privlege over a conversation with anyone.
Ok, let's try a different tack. Since you believe that the claim is BS, in what instances do you believe that the President is unable to hold his discussions with someone as privleged if the President considers it privledged?

#78 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 02:24 PM | Reply

Yes, the President can exert privlege over a conversation with anyone.
Ok, let's try a different tack. Since you believe that the claim is BS, in what instances do you believe that the President is unable to hold his discussions with someone as privleged if the President considers it privledged?

#78 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-09-18 02:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Asserting a privilege doesn't establish a privilege. Claims of privilege are denied all the time for all sorts of reasons.

I don't care to participate in the other discussion. I suggest you Google "Richard Nixon," instead. My point, from the beginning, is that lying to the press isn't OK. You seem to think there are some exceptions; i.e., when Republicans do it. I disagree.

#79 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-18 02:35 PM | Reply

that link is crazy-town written in a hurry (yesterday) to rationalize a whacky overreach of executive privilege. Wow.

#76 | POSTED BY YAV

That's not how it came across to me at all.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 02:35 PM | Reply

He does a good job of making his fantasy sound reasonable. I'm sure his next book BALL OF COLLUSION: THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY, will be a hit, too.

#81 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-18 02:58 PM | Reply

BALL OF COLLUSION: THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY

He really rolled the dice by having that book published before the IG report is released and before the Durham investigation is complete.

He'll either end up looking prescient or foolish.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 03:04 PM | Reply

Anyone who thinks Nadler and the rest in the Clown Car made any points should be denied Firearm Ownership

#83 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-09-18 04:17 PM | Reply

Anyone who thinks Nadler and the rest in the Clown Car made any points should be denied Firearm Ownership

#83 | POSTED BY comrade wizzedON

I think Trump supporters like yourself should have your guns taken away, because ya'll are mentally ill. Your guns need to be taken away and melted down and turned into "Obama peace coins" just to piss off you alt-right (R)tards.

#84 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-18 05:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#84 - love that idea!

#85 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-18 06:34 PM | Reply

Anyone who thinks Nadler and the rest in the Clown Car made any points should be denied Firearm Ownership

#83 | POSTED BY WISGOD

If Nixon were still around, you could ask him about Impeachment for Obstruction of Congress.

#86 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 06:42 PM | Reply

If Nixon were still around, you could ask him about Impeachment for Obstruction of Congress. - #86 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 06:42 PM
Why? He was never impeached for Obstruction of Congress.

#87 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WompWomp Lewandowski came off as cocky, disrespectful and flippant, and he acknowledged that he feels no obligation to tell the truth to the media. So what does CNN do? They invited him on their network last night.

#88 | Posted by cbob at 2019-09-18 06:56 PM | Reply

"Yes, the President can exert privlege over a conversation with anyone."

Horse crap. Show us that in the Constitution. The truth; the President's lackeys can try to exert privelege over a conversation simply because he hold the power to pardon, otherwise they would go the way of Michael Cohen. As long as they are willing to lie for him they are safe, if they cross him they are going to be convicts. He knows it, they know it, and everyone except idiots like you know it.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 06:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

and everyone except idiots like you know it.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 06:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

What makes you think he doesn't know it? Trumpites have no obligation to be truthful to people like you.

#90 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 08:10 AM | Reply

The truth; the President's lackeys can try to exert privelege over a conversation simply because he hold the power to pardon, otherwise they would go the way of Michael Cohen. As long as they are willing to lie for him they are safe, if they cross him they are going to be convicts. He knows it, they know it, and everyone except idiots like you know it.
#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 06:30 AM

Why do you always allow your posts to be littered with ignorance?
The President's lackeys can not exert privilege. They do not have that power.
Danni, I've done a lot to avoid name-calling with you. It has been difficult. That you continue to post false and incredibly misinformed information daily, while still believing that it gives any weight to your calls of 'idiot' is just pathetic. I wish that you would have a little introspection. It is difficult for people to abstain from telling you some harsh, painful truths about yourself.

#91 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 08:24 AM | Reply

The President's lackeys can not exert privilege. They do not have that power.

#91 | Posted by Avigdore at

They are relying upon Trump's exertion of non-existent privilege.

In other words, they rely upon Trump subverting the law and Constitution.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 09:05 AM | Reply

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 09:05 AM
In what way is Presidential privilege non-existent now? It was certainly existent during Obama's administration. It was present during Bush's. It was present during Clinton's administration. Hell, the SC ruled on it during the Nixon era. Why is it suddenly that Zed feels that Trump, who has exerted privilege (at least according to the letter that Lewandowski read during his hearing), doesn't have that privilege?

#93 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 09:32 AM | Reply

The President's lackeys can not exert privilege. They do not have that power.

#91 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-09-19 08:24 AM | FLAG:

If they are part of the executive branch, they can. Are you even paying attention? It's not just a presidential privilege.

#94 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-19 10:07 AM | Reply

U.S. v. Nixon says the privilege exists because of "the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties."

As regards Lewandowski, Trump will consider him a "high governmental official" if he must to protect his own ass. Then Trump will act like he hardly knew Lewandowski if Lewandoski gets in serious legal trouble.

#95 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-19 10:11 AM | Reply

No, Trump is a high government official. The conversation between Trump, a high government official, and Lewandowski, who advised and assisted him, has been determined by Trump to be privileged.

#96 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 11:06 AM | Reply

has been determined by Trump to be privileged.

#96 | Posted by Avigdore

In the furtherance of criminal activity.

#97 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 12:54 PM | Reply

In the furtherance of criminal activity.- #97 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 12:54 PM
The Department of Justice disagrees with your well informed and not at all biased and ignorant opinion.

#98 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 01:18 PM | Reply

The person asserting a privilege is not the arbiter of whether or not a privilege applies. That is a reviewing court's purview. You realize Nixon had to release the tapes, right?

#99 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-19 02:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort