Clown Show: Corey Lewandowski Amuses Himself at Jerry Nadler’s Circus

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

83 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    I am not impressed by Lewandowski, but I almost want to watch him engage the committee while having exactly zero fecks to give. Nadler an Co. are all a bit too impressed with themselves and their committee.Report

  2. The Republicans on the committee were little better, mugging for time to get a pat on the head from Trump and the Right Wing grifters. Gaetz in particular gave this huge speech about why the Obama Administration didn’t brief Trump on the Russian interference .. conveniently ignoring that they DID, just after Lewandowski left the campaign. This prompted Lewandoswski’s most disgusting moment, claiming the Obama Administration hates Trump more than they love the country.

    The Democrats were bad. But the Republicans reminded me again of why I can never be a part of that party again.Report

  3. JoeSal says:

    Huh, well looky there, a human sized mirror to post modernism.


  4. So it turns out that the administration’s disrespect for the rule of law has consequences. Who knew?Report

  5. North says:

    Nothing I saw on that hearing changed my opinion that Pelosi is making the right call by leaving matters as they are. The hearings are mostly letting the pro impeachment portion of her coalition blow off steam and also demonstrate to the whole party that impeachment isn’t going to fly and only the tiny minority of active political commentators will be paying close attention which means the downside risks are low. Meanwhile Pelosi can focus on other matters. It’s a good call.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to North says:

      Meanwhile Pelosi can focus on other matters.

      What other matters? Her entire focus, seems to me, is on playing both sides of impeachment politics.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

        She has to make people thirsty to vote for Democratic Representatives.

        Which means that she can’t quench their thirst but neither can she make people despair and think “there’s no point”.

        She is doing her part for presidential election turnout.

        Making The Squad represent the Dems rather than Pelosi was a heck of a gamble. If the squad disappears, Trump doesn’t have an opponent who is playing his game.Report

        • Rep Pressley dropped the doomed but inevitable “Impeach Kavanaugh” motion yesterday so if the squad fades it isn’t from lack of effort.Report

          • North in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

            The national media has the attention span of a schizophrenic flea and a toxic allergy to repetition. Since the Squad doesn’t actually represent the Democratic Party and doesn’t have any actual power beyond their four votes and their media cachet they will fade as long as they don’t keep upping their ante which is going to be difficult to do.Report

      • North in reply to Stillwater says:

        Exactly what she should be doing. Give the pro-impeachment side the leeway to dig, exert their animal spirits and see if they can actually find a theme or smoking gun that will actually make impeachment a practical possibility rather than a public embarrassment to the party or a turnout mechanism for republicans. While also, of course, keeping the leash tight enough that things don’t whirl out of control and end up helping the republicans.

        Hmm actually I kind of agree with Jay’s point above.Report

        • greginak in reply to North says:

          The best argument against going for impeachment that i’ve seen is that Pelosi knows her own coalition is to incompetent and disorganized to do it. Nadler is proving that bigly. But the “lets see if that pile of tinder and oily rags will start itself on fire” is a failing strategy. Pelosi’s neither here nor there plan just looks weak. It may be a winner in the long run ( 2020) but we need new leaders, ones that aren’t’ such sporking weather vanes and incompetent at oversight. At least Schiff seems to be trying to do his job.Report

          • Philip H in reply to greginak says:

            well, according to Jennifer Rubin over at WaPo today the staff attorney actually did a great job of questioning the witness and got him to testify to being asked to intercede with Mr. Sessions to shut down the Russia investigation. Which gets at the core pf the obstruction charges that Mr. Mueller laid out. Since all I have to work from is the reporting – and little of it focused on this episodes, I have to conclude the Committee could make much head way if it let the professionals do their jobs – not unlike the Watergate hearings . . . .Report

            • greginak in reply to Philip H says:

              Yeah, completely agree. Rep’s unless they have specific experience should just let lawyers with skills do the questioning. Rep’s wanting their tv time is not a wise use of hearings unless the Rep’s are, to use a technical term, good at their f’n jobs.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

            The best argument against going for impeachment that i’ve seen is that Pelosi knows her own coalition is to incompetent and disorganized to do it.

            I also hold this theory. But as Philip mentions, it’s a problem easily solved *if* there is a political will within the party to hold Trump admin officials accountable.

            There isn’t. And the irony here, IMO, is that there’s a straight line from the Obama admin’s failure to hold Bush officials accountable to Trump’s election as POTUS. Pelosi is gambling that *not* holding government officials in a rogue administration will work out better for Dems this time.Report

            • greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

              I’m not sure about the straight line from Obama since not holding officials to account has become a bit of national past time. People still whine about poor ol Bork being Borked with any apparent knowledge of him. He got a sweet fed judgeship out of going all in on covering up watergate.

              I’m not a Pelosi hater, she has done a good job at times. But we need a new younger gen of D pols.Report

            • North in reply to Stillwater says:

              I don’t disagree with your last point though I can feel for Obama’s conundrum at the time. Going after Bush would have both utterly falsified his hope’nchange post partisan branding and would have utterly consumed his Presidency as the GOP fought him to the death on the matter (since their very survival would have been at stake). And it’s not like all of the old Dem hands would have been clean either, Bush made sure to ensnare as many Democrats as he could when the jingoism was running hot after 9/11. It’s entirely possible it would have cost Obama a second term too.

              Maybe Obama should have done it, maybe even probably he should have done it… but I can understand why he recoiled from the undertaking.Report

          • North in reply to greginak says:

            I would agree 100% that if the committee Dems had just assigned their time to a professional to do the questioning it would have gone much better for them. But politicians run to opportunities to grandstand like hippos run to water. *shrugs*Report

        • Stillwater in reply to North says:

          I agree with Jaybird’s point too: by definition her job as Speaker is to ensure that Dems retain the House. It doesn’t follow from that platitude that whatever actions she takes will, in fact, increase the likelihood of Dems holding the House.Report

          • North in reply to Stillwater says:

            Looking at Nadlers performance and the GOP’s intransigence I feel that people claiming full on impeachment would improve those odds have a steep hill to climb to make their case.Report

            • Philip H in reply to North says:

              Then you need to rethink the tea leaves. I’ve talked to a lot of folks who voted trump because of his fighter persona. Whether he delivers or not is not their primary metric – they don’t see politicians on either side fighting for them. They aren’t looking for wins, just for fight. Which is why Speaker Pelosi learned the wrong lessons from the Tea Party and is using them wrongly to deal with this.Report

              • North in reply to Philip H says:

                I don’t think the Democratic Party’s electoral base is a left leaning mirror of the Republican Party’s base so I am dubious that their strategy is replicable on this side of the aisle.

                Also on a more selfish note, as a wonky inclined person I do not look at the GOP staggering around as a rabid fighting zombie having had what was left of its brains devoured by the Tea Party and say “yep, that’s what I want for my side!”Report

              • Stillwater in reply to North says:

                Expressing dignity in defeat is something Democrats are getting quite good at.

                OTOH, dignity might require holding Trump WH officials accountable, by holding them in contempt or even opening up impeachment inquiries.Report

              • North in reply to Stillwater says:

                Sure, but if they hold them in contempt that is supposed to be enforced by… … Trump’s Justice Department. Now I still think they should hold them in contempt of course if for no other reason then for Trumps Justice department to show their true colors.Report

              • Philip H in reply to North says:

                the democrats electoral base cares about the environment, fair labor practices, actual successful public education and ending racial gender and sexual discrimination. The only reason the proposals to deal with that look so far to the left the the DNC – as a entity – has moved its policies rightward to chase campaign donations.

                Most people are not as wonky as you a re I are – they are way more motivated in political spaces when by solid narratives that speak to the emotional needs they have that align with policy concerns.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                they are way more motivated in political spaces when by solid narratives that speak to the emotional needs they have that align with policy concerns.


                That exactly.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Let’s not tell anyone we agree on this. It may shatter the good order of the universe.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Some comments to North and in general:

    1. Pelosi said Trump is “just not worth it” re impeachment. Considering his open corruption regarding using the government and lick spittle lackeys as profit maker for is properties, if Trump is not worth it, who is?

    1a. Or do you think she does not have the votes in her own coaltion but does not want to say that out loud?

    2. She also said Trump “self-impeaches.” This seems to mean that she thinks Trump is so gross that you just let him give him a rope to hang himself and voters will not reelect him in 2020. Is this a weasel way out?

    3. I agree that impeachment is dead letter in the Senate. I still fail to see what is wrong with doing something because you think it is right and then hanging out on Moscow Mitch for being a lickspittle lackey.

    4. FWIW, I think Pelosi is an earnest policy wonk and heart and finds it vaguely distasteful to run and win on Trump’s corruption and other unfitness for office. She wants a grand debate on policy and for millions of Americans to tell the media that they voted Democratic because the Democratic Party has the best policies for ordinary Americans. Of course, the real world does not work that way.Report

    • greginak in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I agree Trump is impeachment worthy. The D’s like Pelosi don’t seem to get the current media world or that they need to drive a narrative. Waiting to see if impeachment catches fire is to passive. It’s not like there are a dozen dollops of grift or scandal weekly with the Trump crew. The D’s don’t seem to be able to know how to highlight and drive home what is going on. That said if Nadler is the kind of person you will have to depend on in an impeachment that is sad.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:


      Pelosi and Dem leadership aren’t trying to win an election, they’re trying to not lose it.Report

      • North in reply to Stillwater says:

        Great Comment Saul!

        1. I would take Pelosi to be saying that Trump isn’t worth ruining the Democratic Party’s chances on and she’s right that there’s a very real risk that going for impeachment would do just that. In that light Trump is not worth it. Also would it be worth impeaching Trump if it guaranteed Pence the Presidency in 2020? I would agree with Pelosi that Trump wouldn’t be worth 4-8 years of Pence. Trump is, obviously, astonishingly corrupt and is the most impeachment worthy President, probably in the history of the republic. That the GOP is lockstep in formation behind him says horrific things about the GOP. That Pelosi is realistic enough to recognize those political facts speaks well of her to me at least.

        2. Yup, I think that means the voters repudiate him in 2020. Is it a weasel way out? I don’t think so. Elections are fundamentally more valid in the minds of voters than legal procedures. A President eliminated by failure to win reelection garners little sympathy; on the other hand history would be far less kind to an impeached Trump than an unelected one. This comes back to your question #1. Do we hate Trump so much we’d be willing to risk a heightened chance of his reelection on the long shot of impeaching him? Pelosi says that gamble isn’t worth it; I agree.

        3. This seems predicated on Mitch stonewalling the impeachment proceeding instead of him swiftly scheduling a vote after perfunctory hearings, the Dems failing to get the necessary majority and then the GOP trumpeting “Trump acquitted by Senate after partisan Dems try to impeach” in the last months running up to 2020’s election. Again, back to #1. If the long odds of Trump being impeached worth the very real risk of him being strengthened? Especially now when he appears to be in a bad position electorally?

        4. I disagree with your analysis here. I believe if Nancy Pelosi thought there were good odds of Trump being impeached by her pulling the trigger on impeachment proceedings she’d do it in a heartbeat. She’s always been pretty realistic about vote counting and costs. She pushed the ACA over the finish line, for instance, knowing the risks. She’s not been afraid to make a gamble for a big payoff or win. But I think that she doesn’t see this as being a big gamble for a big payoff; I think she sees it the way I do: a big gamble for either nothing in the Senate or a potential base motivating win for Trump in the Senate. She thinks it’s a mugs game and I do too.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Democrats have consistently failed to learn the key Republican lesson since Reagan – tell a good damn story. Perhaps fold your policy preference into it, but tell the story. Humans are narrative, emotional creatures. We don’t do well with graphs and charts and white papers.

      Republicans have told a story and told it very consistently for 40 plus years. And they keep being rewarded for their stories with greater power.Report

      • North in reply to Philip H says:

        Republicans have a narrower coalition, a more extreme base and a dedicated propoganda media arm which makes weaving and delivering a persuasive story much easier for them. The Democratic party depends on a much more diverse camp of interests, its electoral base tilts much more moderate and they have to deliver their message through a media apparatus that, while sympathetic to liberalism, is aligned with itself and its media priors far more than with liberalism or the Democratic Party. They have higher bars to clear to weave a unifying narrative.Report

        • Philip H in reply to North says:

          They haven’t tried to weave a coherent narrative since the early 1970’s. Thus we don’t know if they can. What we do know is Republicans have remained successful at expanding and holding power because they have maintained story telling discipline for 40 plus years.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      For 1, even more than corruption is Trump’s obvious authoritarian manner and his insistence in bringing mass amounts of cruelty to our immigration system. He and his administration are committing human rights violations against countless people. Is this not worth impeachment? Whether or not there enough Democrats for impeachment is interesting. I can’t imagine why any House Democratic party member would vote for Trump in an impeachment vote. Their constituencies are going to be at least somewhat anti-Trump. Many are very anti-Trump. Voting for impeachment will not hurt them next election. Why would anybody want to come out as pro-Trump?

      Re 4, Pelosi has to deal with the politics she has, not the politics she wants. You can’t have a grand debate about policy when the other side simply even refuses to debate in bad faith. People mainly vote out of inchoate tribal reasons than grand policy. Democratic voters want blood.Report

    • Damon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Impeaching him! Just like Clinton, he won’t be removed. And as we’ve seen with Bill, his supporters won’t care, and the other side will move on.

      So in the end, what’s it get you?Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Considering his open corruption regarding using the government and lick spittle lackeys as profit maker for is properties…

      Did I miss a scandal, are we assuming what should be proven, or are we assuming every rented hotel room in an international empire threatens the republic?Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    For Stillwater:

    I don’t think she is necessarily incorrect. Letting Trump hang himself could be a viable political strategy and I don’t think 2018 was just passive luck either. Democrats went out and recruited and campaigned hard. The 2020 nominees are going to campaign hard.

    I try to resist the “Dems in disarray” narrative because I find it Republican biased and false but she has said some real puzzlers still.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Its especially disconcerting since my favorite Pelosi saying is that “we came here to do a job, not keep one” in response to nervous caucus members.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Letting Trump hang himself could be a viable political strategy

      Yes yes! Let’s try that out!*

      * Well, I’d like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of THIS jam!
      *Trump wriggles his way out of the jam easily*
      Ah! Well. Nevertheless,Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:

        Well it arguably at least partially contributed to 2018’s wave. We should also be clear that impeachment is dead letter in the Senate. Only death ends Trump’s Presidency before 2021.Report

      • North in reply to Stillwater says:

        What is funny is that little vignette fits much better with Dems trying to impeach him than it does with Trump and his utter lack of accomplishment going before the electorate in 2020 and trying to repeat his 2016 miracle without HRC or Comey to help him out and without being able to pretend he’s a new kind of Republican like he did in 2016.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to North says:

          North, the point of impeaching Trump isn’t to remove him from office, it’s to (pretend to) fight against a corrupt administration in order to give the (false) impression that Democrats care about the rule of law and accountability. But at this point I’m convinced that the reason people resist impeaclhment isn’t because of the base politics or whatever other nonsense excuse they give, but because they think the Democrats are too incompetent to pull it off. That’s a helluva campaign message going into 2020, right? “Vote Dem in 2020. We’re too incompetent to fight for our values but we’re not as bad as Trump!”Report

          • North in reply to Stillwater says:

            I’m not impressed with the Dems ability to push the impeachment case. You may blame it on weakness on the part of the prosecuting party or it may be due to the weakness of the core case. I don’t deny Trump deserves impeaching but I doubt that a case can be made with the evidence currently available that will sway the republican and independent voters that would need to be swayed.

            I recognize you think the Dems are almost as badly corrupt and contemptible as the GOP is. Fair enough but I don’t share your view on that. I like you plenty buddy but impressing Stillwater is not enough upside reason to risk blowing the next election and heightening the odds of another Trump term. It just ain’t.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to North says:

              but I doubt that a case can be made with the evidence currently available that will sway the republican and independent voters that would need to be swayed.

              The point isn’t to convince them on the merits, North. It’s to convince them – and more importantly convince liberal-leaning folks who don’t vote or won’t vote for Ds – that the Democrats can, and will, use the levers of power to actually fight for a tangible goal.

              Getting rolled on every level of politics and governance on\ly to stand up in an election year and say “vote for us!” is a tough sell to anyone who isn’t already a Dem voter.Report

              • North in reply to Stillwater says:

                Yes, I’m aware of the “fightin’ Dems will be more popular” argument. It might even hold water for that portion of the electorate who are paying close attention. That portion is, however, the overwhelming minority.

                Now maybe you’re right and the electorate in general will go the same way. I don’t know, you don’t know, no one can truly know right now. But the polls and our prior experience in the scenario most like this one suggest the opposite.

                With the current fundamentals the way they are and the way the winds currently seem to be blowing I don’t blame Pelosi for not wanting to roll the dice on the question of which of us are right.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to North says:

                One of the amusing and slightly disturbing consiequences of discussing this issue with you and Saul and others is that each conversation makes it slightly more difficult for me to justify voting for Democrats. Which is weird….Report

              • North in reply to Stillwater says:

                Hmm that is interesting considering how very differently the two of us approach the party. Maybe the GOP should cut us a check?Report

  8. Saul Degraw says:

    I think it is more that they see the writing on the wall and know 2020 will be difficult for them.Report

  9. Steve Casburn says:

    1. Berke’s elicitation of Lewandowski’s admission that he feels no shame in lying to the media is a torpedo below the waterline of Lewandowski’s political career. “Are you lying now, Corey? You’re not under oath.” “Was that a lie, Corey? You haven’t been sworn in.”

    2. I wonder whether Pelosi is holding fire because she knows a bigger, landscape-shifting revelation is on the way–a bombshell from Trump’s financial records or a worsening of Trump’s dementia–and she wants to be able to say when that comes out that she had not previously been advocating impeachment.Report

    • George Turner in reply to Steve Casburn says:

      Possibility 2 is covered by my diary

      Jan 20, 2017: Week 1 of the Trump Presidency. Next week they will reveal evidence that destroys him! Also, a customer asked if I have Prince Albert in a can.
      Week 2. New revelations will come out next week and bring Trump down! Customer called again about tobacco.
      Week 3. Next week Comey will prove Trump colluded with Russia and he will be removed! And wondering if the tobacco inquiries may involve underage smokers.
      Week 4. Ditto

      … skipping on down through Russian collusion, Mueller Mueller Mueller, Stormy Daniels, tax records, white supremacy, hotel stays, and constant calls to see if I have Prince Albert in a can.

      Week 137: Nadler’s committee will depose Lewandowski and Trump will be destroyed! Ordering more Prince Albert tobacco based on ongoing interest in it.
      Week 138. Nancy will reveal Trump-ending revelations next week! Also getting continued calls about Prince Albert tobacco.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Steve Casburn says:

      Trump’s base delights in being lied to, if it owns the libs.

      Notice there is always the short pause between one of his bizarre lies, where they are frantically trying to decide if the party line should be “Fake news, he didn’t say that!” Or “Of course, the hurricane was really going to hit Alabama!” In which case they will defend it to the death.Report

      • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        During NOAA’s updates they had Alabama getting with hurricane level or tropical storm winds and torrential rain, and the prediction cone even had the eye hitting Alabama before shifting back to the northeast.

        All these are available in NOAA’s massive archive of NOAA’s Dorian predictions.

        Try “Graphics Archive” near the top center of the page, then “Cone with Wind Field” and “5-day with line”. Having the eye hit Alabama was within their cone, as were predictions of very high winds hitting Birmingham and other inland Alabama cities.

        It’s hilarious that Trump can take a Sharpie and make the press leap around like a cat chasing a laser dot.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner says:

          The point of that whole debacle was that Trump couldn’t be bothered to get the latest NOAA predictions, he was showing data that was (IIRC) already a day or two old.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            His laziness and stupidity in not reading or preparing was point #1;

            The continued lying and fragile bluster of a man incapable of admitting error was point #2;

            Point #3, and the center of my comment was that Trump can take a Sharpie and make his supporters leap around like a cat chasing a laser dot.Report

          • George Turner in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            He was making a point that it was an earlier map.

            CNN’s story on it said

            Trump: “That was the original chart, and you see it was going to hit not only Florida but Georgia,” Trump claimed Wednesday during a briefing, while showing a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration map with a black line encircling a portion of Alabama.

            “It took a right turn. And, ultimately, hopefully we’re going to be lucky. It depends on what happens with South Carolina and North Carolina.”

            The particular map he used (NOAA produces several per day) was two or three maps away from the one that showed the outer line of eye probabilities entering Alabama (which is in the NOAA archive I linked above), and which would have sent hurricane force winds throughout the region he circled.

            Trump wouldn’t be talking about Dorian making the turn and saving Alabama and the Florida panhandle if he was unaware of the turn that Dorian made, nor would he have referred to that map as an “original chart”.

            From this, the press spun a vast conspiracy theory because they have the minds of four-year olds.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

              At no point was there ever a prediction that the cone of the hurricane would hit Alabama, and by the time he tweeted his fervent prayers for the safety of the people of Alabama, the threat had long passed.

              Again, Point #1 is trivial. Point #2 is significant, but point #3 is actually serious.
              Democracy and the rule of law can’t coexist with a Stalinesque mindset.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Then why is that prediction of hitting Alabama sitting in NOAA’s archive of predictions, where I just saw it, and where it’s been sitting since they made it?

                People in Florida were keenly aware of every prediction NOAA made. One of my friends had to blow his weekend in emergency prep meetings for the Tampa area, because for days the most likely predicted path had it plowing right over Hillsborough county.

                As it turns out, they gave out enormous numbers of sandbags but don’t bother to go collect them if the hurricane changes course. I warned him that if they keep doing that, Florida is eventually going to run out of sand. ^_^

                I have no idea what a Satlineque hurricane prediction would look like because the Soviet Union never had a hurricane hit it, just waves of socialism that did far more damage than any storm.Report

              • Philip H in reply to George Turner says:

                You need to back off NOAA or you and I will be stepping outside.

                Aside from giving a totally by then false forecast drawn in with the Sharpie, once it was pointed out by the local forecast office that he had erred (since they were fielding dozens of panicked calls from locals who hadn’t prepped), he apparently then sent the Commerce Secretary to smack the acting NOAA Administrator, who then publicly rebuked said weather office for doing its job through an cowardly unsigned NOAA press release (and internal emails saying directly no one should publicly contradict the president).

                Stuff like that makes people question NOAA, and that will eventually get people killed because they won’t believe the forecasts. That aside, its sickening political meddling of the kind we never saw in prior administrations.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

                If you read the CNN transcript, you’ll see he wasn’t giving a forecast. He was pointing out that the hurricane had turned from it’s original forecast path, which is what he was illustrating with the Sharpie.

                The NOAA updates show that indeed, at one point the forecast path had the eye hitting Alabama.

                Follow my NOAA archive link and watch it for yourself. Then read Trump’s words as dutifully recorded by CNN.

                As I said, our press has the comprehension of 4-year olds, and they love to lie to generate a story.Report