Political commentator Catherine Rampell disagreed with New York Times columnist Frank Bruni that the Democrats faltered during the hearing with Corey Lewandowski Tuesday. Former state and federal prosecutor Elie Honig called Lewandowski a “train-wreck of a witness.”
She explained that Democrats had an extremely low bar: they had to prove Trump obstructed justice and that Corey Lewandowski gave one of the examples of such obstructions. In that sense, Rampell said they accomplished their goals.
“I don’t think this was a great day for Corey Lewandowski,” she began. “This is a guy who went on TV and announced to the world — apparently at the same time he is also trying to fundraise for Senate — that he lies most of the time. Except when he’s under oath.”
During a recess, Lewandowski tweeted out a link to his campaign, taking advantage of the fact that his name was trending on Twitter.
“He announced he lies under oath. Or, excuse me, when he’s not under oath,” Rampell continued. “Which is, presumably, most of the time, including when he’s talking to members of the media. Including talking to prospective voters, one would imagine. This is a guy who I thought he came off as really churlish among other things. But this was a hearing that was about obstruction of justice and this is the most obstructive performance I can imagine. The Democrats didn’t seem prepared, but I didn’t come off thinking Corey Lewandowski himself did anything other than embarrass himself.”
Honig agreed with Rampell that Lewandowski was certainly not the winner of Tuesday’s hearing.
“It was a strange day,” Honig began. “On the one hand, Corey Lewandowski was a train-wreck of a witness. I was looking at this as a former prosecutor and put hundreds on the witness stand. He was angry and sarcastic and more interested in flinging personal insults and pumping his senate campaign than actually bringing a little bit of truth to the American public and to Congress. He also gave damming testimony. He testified, ‘The president tried to get me to get the AG to tamp down the investigation.’ That’s presidency-ending in normal times. But here we are, and it didn’t move the needle because the House Democrats have been so weak in the way they have gone about this.”
Honig asked Democrats if the information provided in the Mueller report is enough to hold an impeachment hearing. If it is, then why are the hearings continuing, he wondered.
Watch the full discussion below:
GOP shamed by a presidential historian for not taking impeachment seriously
Following the House Judiciary Committee's historic vote, sending two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor, presidential historian Tim Naftali broke down why this impeachment was both important and different from previous ones.
Sitting on the panel with host Wolf Blitzer and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, Naftali began, "Impeachment is the last best defense against those who would abuse their power. In our history, four times the Congress has turned to that tool to deal with a president that for one reason or another they felt was a challenge to the constitutional order."
‘It’s all distractions’: CNN panel obliterates GOP for totally refusing to discuss Trump’s conduct
A CNN panel on Thursday obliterated House Republicans for once again completely ignoring the substance of allegations against President Donald Trump and instead throwing out numerous distractions intended to deflect attention from the president's actions.
"It's been distractions about the Bidens, it's been distractions about conspiracy theories about Ukraine's involvement in the election," said CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero. "Yesterday, it was distractions about FISA and FISA so-called abuse. It was distractions from Congressman Gohmert reading calls from 1943! It's been all distractions and they won't wrestle with the actual conduct."
CNN’s Jake Tapper does line-by-line fact check of Jim Jordan’s nonstop misleading statements during impeachment hearing
Host Jake Tapper did a special web fact-check for CNN.com where he looked line-by-line into Rep. Jim Jordan's (R-OH) claims about the impeachment proceedings.
He had four specific talking points that were disingenuous and outright false.
1. Jordan: "There was no quid pro quo in the transcript"
There absolutely was evidence in the summary of the transcript. Tapper began by explaining that Americans still haven't seen the full transcript or a recording of the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
"If you read the summary of the transcript it clearly shows that after a discussion of U.S. military support for Ukraine, President Trump said the relationship is not 'reciprocal' and he asks Zelensky for 'a favor,'" Tapper said. "The favor? To investigate a conspiracy theory into the 2016 election and later in the call he says, 'one other thing,' he wants Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter."