Ex-Trump Campaign Chief Lewandowski Says ‘Happy’ to Testify Before Congress

President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said on Friday that he was “happy” to testify before the Democratic-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee as part of a congressional investigation of the Trump presidency.

The panel, which is considering whether to recommend Trump’s impeachment, subpoenaed Lewandowski on Thursday as a witness to an alleged attempt by the president to impede former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation after the 2016 election.

Now a private citizen, Lewandowski said he looked forward to the chance to testify as “a guy who’s going to fight back” against Democratic claims of wrongdoing by Trump.

“I am an open book. I want to go and remind the American people that these guys are on a witch hunt, right?” Lewandowski told Fox News Radio. “Never did I say I wasn’t coming.”

House Democrats believed the White House might try to block Lewandowski from testifying, as it has done with other former Trump advisers, including former White House Counsel Don McGahn and former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks.

“They didn’t have to subpoena me,” Lewandowski told Fox. “They could have just said, hey, Corey, will you show up? I would have said: I’m happy to come, right? Because I want to explain that there was no collusion, there was no obstruction.”

Lewandowski, who is contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate in next year’s elections, said he could make a final decision on the issue in early October.

Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 failed to produce enough evidence to prove that Moscow conspired with the Trump campaign, despite numerous contacts between Russia and campaign officials. Mueller also made no determination about whether Trump obstructed justice.

The Judiciary Committee also served a subpoena on Thursday on Rick Dearborn, Trump’s former deputy chief of staff.

Both Dearborn and Lewandowski figured prominently in Mueller’s 448-page report as witnesses to an alleged effort by Trump to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the Mueller investigation and redirect it away from Trump’s 2016 campaign.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Diane Craft)

Responses

  1. “Just take a page from hillarys’ hand book,I don’t recall,I don’t remember” Kaitlin

    I think Kaitlin is confusing Hillary Clinton with typical Republican testifiers.

    Benghazi hearing ends after extraordinary 11-hour grilling of Clinton

    Los Angelese Times
    By EVAN HALPER , DAVID LAUTER
    OCT. 22, 2015 4:15 AM

    Reporting from Washington — Republicans grilled former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton through nearly 11 hours Thursday in a long-awaited hearing of the House Benghazi committee that produced little if any new information, but ample partisan argument.

    The hearing provided an extraordinary spectacle, starting in the morning and stretching well into the night, far longer than such sessions typically last even with multiple witnesses.

    Through the lengthy session, Clinton maintained a relentlessly calm and smiling demeanor, showing few visible signs of fatigue other than a hoarse throat that began to develop in the 10th hour.

    From her opening statement on, she sought to seize a rhetorical high ground above the partisan fray, reminding members of the panel that after attacks on diplomatic facilities during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in which hundreds of Americans were killed, members of both parties “rose above politics” to examine what had gone wrong.

    In investigating the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in the Libyan city of Benghazi, “Congress has to be our partner as it has been after previous tragedies,” Clinton said.

    “We need leadership at home to match our leadership abroad,” she said in her opening statement. “Leadership that puts national security ahead of ideology.”

    Clinton’s appearance was preceded by several weeks of bad publicity for the committee, starting when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said in a television interview that the panel had succeeded in driving down Clinton’s poll ratings.

    Democrats, who had long charged the committee with partisanship, have relentlessly repeated McCarthy’s words.

    As a result, panel Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) began the hearing on defense, using his opening statement to justify the panel’s existence.

    Although seven previous congressional investigations had examined the Benghazi attacks, “those previous investigations were not thorough,” Gowdy said. The current panel was seeking “the truth,” he declared.

    But if one of Clinton’s goals was to convey an image of being more composed and serious than her inquisitors, members of the committee often appeared to help, engaging in one high-decibel shouting match and numerous partisan jabs.

    The committee’s seven Republicans and five Democrats squabbled over the cost to taxpayers of the multiple investigations, the conduct of the State Department in responding to those inquiries, even the length of the hearing, itself.

    “We’ve been here for 9 1/2 hours, and the questions are increasingly badgering … increasingly vicious,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said as the evening wore on and Republican members turned from questions about the attack to inquiries about Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails while she headed the State Department.

    “They simply wish to wear you down.”

    The hearing has been eagerly anticipated for its potential impact on next year’s election. Partisans on both sides anticipate that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, mobilizing each party’s supporters will be a higher priority than finding or converting the relative handful of voters who remain undecided about her.

    Both parties think the committee proceedings could help in the mobilization effort.

    Among Republicans, “Benghazi” has become a watchword on the campaign trail — an almost all-purpose label for sins of both omission and commission that GOP voters perceive in the former secretary of State’s record.

    Democrats are equally convinced that the committee provides an example of Republican unfairness and excess. The committee’s Democratic members made more than a dozen references to the panel’s $4.7-million price tag, saying that the GOP was wasting taxpayer money in an effort to harm Clinton’s campaign.

    Republicans have hoped the hearing would produce slip-ups by Clinton that could be used to mobilize opposition in next year’s election. An exasperated outburst she made when she last testified about Benghazi, almost three years ago, has become a GOP talking point.

    Democrats, always nervous about Clinton’s tendency to become defensive when criticized, watched to see how she parried the GOP attacks.

    As the evening wore on, Democratic apprehensions turned to applause as party spokespeople rushed to congratulate Clinton on her stamina and to denounce the committee for what they saw as a partisan inquisition.

    Gowdy conceded after the hearing that Clinton’s lengthy testimony had broken little new ground.

    “I don’t know that she testified much differently today than when she previously testified,” he said.

    The hearing began on a testy note as Gowdy and the senior Democrat on the panel, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, sparred over whether the panel’s work was merely repeating what other investigations had done.

    A few hours later, the two men, joined by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), escalated their conflict, engaging in an angry procedural fight over whether to release the transcript of the committee’s interrogation of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend of Clinton’s and an aide to her husband.

    As Clinton watched, smiling, Cummings — shouting across the committee dais — accused Gowdy of selectively releasing Blumenthal’s emails in order to make false allegations. Gowdy accused the Democrats of attempting to disrupt the committee’s proceedings, then vowed to investigate Clinton’s old friend further.

    “If you think you’ve heard about Sidney Blumenthal so far, wait until the next round,” he said before stalking out of the committee room for a lunchtime recess.

    When the committee reconvened, the members voted 7 to 5, along party lines, not to release the transcript.

    Blumenthal remained a major focus in the committee’s afternoon session, with Gowdy and other Republicans questioning why he had such ready access to Clinton.

    “I don’t know what this line of questioning does to help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans,” Clinton responded to Gowdy at one point.

    Said Schiff: “I just don’t understand the preoccupation with Sidney Blumenthal. You would think he was in Benghazi, manning the barricades.”

    Blah, blah, nlah, unnecessary details here.

    Democrats on the current committee have repeatedly attacked the direction of the investigation. They accuse Gowdy of failing to interview potential witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened in the attack and instead using committee resources to drag top Clinton operatives into closed-door interrogations in a bid to generate headlines.

    Last week, the committee spent hours interviewing longtime Clinton advisor Huma Abedin and even alerted the media to the location of the questioning, which was closed to the public.

    The five Democrats on the committee are contemplating whether to resign from the panel altogether in protest. Schiff said whether the Democrats remain on the panel may depend on “just how long they intend to keep this thing alive.”

    “At a certain point, we may very well reach the conclusion that the diminishing returns of our continued participation don’t outweigh the liability of giving it any respectability,” he said.

    I am confused. Where does she say “I don’t recall, I don’t remember”? This is what good cooperation looks like. Clinton endured Gowdy’s nonsense for eleventy hours and Gowdy came away emptyhanded – again, mind you. I hope Cory Lewandowski is able endure his testimony and is just as forthcoming.

  2. Just take a page from hillarys’ hand book,I don’t recall,I don’t remember
    .

    1. Can you recall when that testimony took place? Sharing it would be helpful. Perhaps you are confusing Hillary with Jeff Sessions’s June 14, 2017 testimony when he say “I do not recall” or “I don’t remember” “36 times. Or perhaps it was DJT’s Nov 20, 2018 written answers to Mueller’s questions on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump responded 36 times “I do not recall or I do not remember” (Appendix C pages 3-23 of Mueller report.) Trump refused to answer ANY questions regarding Obstruction of Justice.– Page 1 of Appendix C, Introductory Note.

  3. This person is a turncoat. That was the name given to traitors in the Civil War and the War of Independence.

  4. “numerous contacts between Russia and campaign officials” …..Hey lying, shameless, lefty “journalists” ; You forgot to mention that these “contacts” (like Misfud, Downer, Halper, etc) were CIA or State department operatives ….approved operations of entrapment by Obama. Oh, you didn’t hear about the documents? Guess you’re not much of a credible journalist then are you.

    1. No Alan, credible journalist do not use conspiracies as sources. ANY sane person would call 140 contacts between Russia and campaign officials” NUMEROUS. All 140 are outlined in the Mueller Report. BUT, in attempting to figure out Trumpian math I discovered that Trumpian logic is involved.. 12,019 lies in 938 days equals ZERO–because they are what Trumpers wanted to hear. 140 contacts with Russians equal ZERO because accepting Russian assistance is okay with Trumpers.

      1. Join the discussion…No syphilis you are not a credible source of anything. You are a liar and fake news specialist and your rants about everything conservative should be taken in that context. Try reading the documents sometime and stop spewing the garbage you leaders want you to repeat. You are a good communist drone.

  5. Mueller didn’t make any determination because there was no evidence. It was a fishing expedition (like the rest of the investigations going on now) and nothing more. Mueller found nothing, but the Democrats will keep at it until 2020 in the hopes of winning the Presidency. Lying, cheating, corrupt Democrats.

    1. Charles, Volume II of the Mueller report outlines VERY CLEARLY the evidence. Over 1,000 former federal prosecutors (both R & D appointees) have signed a letter stating charges would be FILED. –Charges could not be filed by a DOJ rule—not a LAW. Muelller told the American public that Trump COULD be charged after leaving office. He was asked the question a 2nd time, and AGAIN his answer was YES, Trump can be charged after leaving office. Do not take my word for it, READ the Mueller Report, READ the letter, LISTEN to Mueller’s testimony. THINK and RESEARCH for yourself. That way you won’t be mislead.

      1. When Mueller said President Trump could be charged after he leaves office, he was answering a question about when a President can be charged according to the law. You’re taking his answer out of context, as Lying Democrats always do. When Mueller was asked if President Trump hindered or obstructed his investigation, his answer was one word, “NO!”. When asked if there was any evidence that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians, his answer was that there was no evidence to that. Stop lying.

  6. Happy? How wonderful he’ll testify in front of Nadless, Schiffhead, Conjob, and the other dwarves infesting the Judiciary Committee.

    It’s a shame Muellder didn’t have Scully to back up his testimony or this would not have been another X-file.

    1. I am not surprised that you are not a supporter of Law and Order. It is disconcerting that 7 other IJR readers don’t care if Trump breaks the law.

  7. Tell these “people?” how it is. I am so sick of their nonsense, they have no idea what they are talking about and they keep running their mouths just to hear themselves talk. What a bunch of idiots.

  8. The problem is the democrats in Congress are not open books.

  9. Go to it Corey . Even though you tell them the truth they will swear you are lying stupid witch-hunting dumber than dumb dummycrats.
    All total assholes.

  10. When this fails they’ll just try something else. It’s pretty obvious by now that they’re shopping for ANYTHING that might stick. Sad it’s allowed to continue. It’s farce.

  11. Dictating a letter to give to the AG instructing him to “unrecuse” and change the investigation to “crimes in future elections” is NOT Obstruction of Justice in ONLY the world where campaign staff were deemed not smart enough to be aware accepting assistance from a foreign government was against the law.

    1. Join the discussion…Who accepted assistance from a foreign government syphilis??? Oh, I know. It was hitlary and the klinton organization as well as the dnc.

    2. Syphilis – You’re another idiot that ignores that when Mueller was asked if the President hindered or obstructed the investigation in any way, Mueller answered, “NO!”. Mueller also testified that he found NO evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in any way. Your made up letter comment is odd at best.

Comments are closed.