Nancy Pelosi has had a long and distinguished career in politics, this I can't deny. However, she has, and perhaps her increasing age, has, well, weakened her political acumen.
In 2009 she rammed through the Senate's healthcare bill. Normally, the House makes some changes and sends it back to the Senate. But with the death of Senator Kennedy Democrats couldn't send it back. See, they lost their super majority. So they had a choice. Either work with Republicans or ram through a very Liberal bill. They chose the latter, and House Democrats decided to pass it "as is".
And Nancy, with a smile on her face told House Democrats, "we will have to pass it so we can find out what is in it." A truly a dumb move. Democrats then lost their majority in the House.
Now, fast forward a decade to her latest huge mistake. She gave the go ahead for an impeachment inquiry of the President without first reading a transcript of the call. She could have waited one day, 24 hours, and read the transcript! Wouldn't that be, as George H.W. Bush would say, the prudent thing to do?
Democrats don't have "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is required for impeaching a President. Since the hearings, support for the President is up. Support for an impeachment is down.
Fake news CNN has a poll that shows support is unchanged since the hearings, But they spin it by saying support for impeachment is "steady."
Now Democrats are stuck. The base is demanding an impeachment, but the facts, evidence,and legal justifications are not there. The public is sharply divided. The votes aren't there in the Senate. And in the House it will pass on a purely party line vote. Not one Republican will vote for it.
But Nancy can take comfort in one thing. CNN's token Republican, Matt Lewis, praised her decision to launch an impeachment inquiry. That's like praising the captain of the Titanic for ditching most of the lifeboats before leaving. They just clutter the deck.
You may remember Lewis claimed a couple weeks ago that the "walls are slowly closing in." on President Trump. Yeah, very slowly indeed.
Lewis in a column on the left wing site Daily Beast, "Nancy is right on this one", praised her decision. One the dumbest political moves in history! He thinks it is a swell idea?
Can Lewis truly believe that Nancy made a smart move pushing an impeachment without a crime? I doubt it. But his masters at CNN probably were pleased with such nonsense. You see they suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome,and as such they are unable to think rationally about the President.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Lewis Proclaims: "I'm Center Right"
CNN's in house Republican declared the other day, in a post in his newsletter, that despite supporting the impeachment of a conservative President, that he is never the less politically "center right."
A conservative would say that the constitution requires "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to impeach a President. That is impeachment requires an actual violation of law. Which was present in the two Presidential impeachment cases, Johnson and Clinton. You see they actually committed crimes.
Lewis doesn't cite any law breaking, rather pushes focus grouped reasons. "abuse of power" "extortion", "Un Presidential conduct." And recently 'bribery'.
He and the Democrats will soon push the claim that the President committed Bribery. The framers wrote in a prohibition against bribery because they didn't want our President to be bribed by a foreign country. Makes sense. That goes along with Treason. But the Democrats aren't claiming he was bribed by another country. They are claiming he tried to bribe another country!
Something the framers never considered nor were concerned with.
But Lewis and the Democrats know from focus groups that Bribery does well. So they will use the federal standard of bribery and claim Trump is guilty. The Federal standard of bribery was written in the 1960's. Trump is not even guilty by that standard, but it is a looser standard.
A conservative would follow the words and the meaning of the constitution. But of course CNN's Matt Lewis is not a conservative.
A conservative would say that the constitution requires "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to impeach a President. That is impeachment requires an actual violation of law. Which was present in the two Presidential impeachment cases, Johnson and Clinton. You see they actually committed crimes.
Lewis doesn't cite any law breaking, rather pushes focus grouped reasons. "abuse of power" "extortion", "Un Presidential conduct." And recently 'bribery'.
He and the Democrats will soon push the claim that the President committed Bribery. The framers wrote in a prohibition against bribery because they didn't want our President to be bribed by a foreign country. Makes sense. That goes along with Treason. But the Democrats aren't claiming he was bribed by another country. They are claiming he tried to bribe another country!
Something the framers never considered nor were concerned with.
But Lewis and the Democrats know from focus groups that Bribery does well. So they will use the federal standard of bribery and claim Trump is guilty. The Federal standard of bribery was written in the 1960's. Trump is not even guilty by that standard, but it is a looser standard.
A conservative would follow the words and the meaning of the constitution. But of course CNN's Matt Lewis is not a conservative.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Lewis Praises Socialist Castro, Disses Conservative Stefanik
CNN's Matt Lewis calls himself "center-right" Sounds nice, but that claim is getting eviscerated every week. For example Lewis tweeted out praise for hard left Texas Democrat Joaquin Castro, He tweeted, "I usually don't agree with Castro." Well, more and more he is falling in line with the left.
He was impressed with Castro's line of questioning at the impeachment hearings. However, he dismissed the performance of New York conservative Elise Stefanik. well, perhaps his animosity stems from the fact that she is a good conservative. Lewis's colleagues at CNN aren't going to like her.
Over the last several weeks Lewis has expressed great sympathy for the Ukrainians. In his own words:
Well, Stefanik had a good line of questions for former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. She served in the Obama Administration:
Stefanik: "lethal aid which you advocated for was not provided by President Obama is that correct?"
Yovanovitch: "that is correct."
Stefanik: "But it was provided by President Trump correct?"
Yovanovitch: "Yes."
So how can Lewis denounced President Trump for not supporting the Ukrainians? "Leaving them desperate and vulnerable." Lewis had no comment about this point.
He was impressed with Castro's line of questioning at the impeachment hearings. However, he dismissed the performance of New York conservative Elise Stefanik. well, perhaps his animosity stems from the fact that she is a good conservative. Lewis's colleagues at CNN aren't going to like her.
Over the last several weeks Lewis has expressed great sympathy for the Ukrainians. In his own words:
"Sadly, I don't think most Americans are going to care that Trump was exploiting a desperate and vulnerable Ukraine--and that a threat from Russia to them was always looming."
Well, Stefanik had a good line of questions for former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. She served in the Obama Administration:
Stefanik: "lethal aid which you advocated for was not provided by President Obama is that correct?"
Yovanovitch: "that is correct."
Stefanik: "But it was provided by President Trump correct?"
Yovanovitch: "Yes."
So how can Lewis denounced President Trump for not supporting the Ukrainians? "Leaving them desperate and vulnerable." Lewis had no comment about this point.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Lewis Claims, "Nancy is Right On.."
A few weeks back House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move forward on impeachment. She made this decision before she had even read the transcript of the President's call with the Ukrainian President Zalensky.
Well, wanting to be the first to join the parade Lewis quickly praised Nancy's fine decision. In a column in the left wing Daily Beast, Lewis writes “I am a conservative and Nancy Pelosi is right On Here.”
But impeachment is in trouble. Since it began, Fox News ratings are up, Trump's fundraising is up. There is no sign of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Pelosi in desperation has even floated an idea that Trump may have committed Bribery.
The framers were concerned that a President might be bribed by a King or foreign government, so it became an impeachable crime. But, Pelosi is not claiming that Trump was being bribed, she is claiming that he tried to bribe another country!
I doubt the framers considered, or were even concerned about, the President bribing a foreign government. Why would they? But Pelosi needs to find something impeachable.
She probably won't be able to find an impeachable crime. But she has an ally in Matt Lewis. So that is a nice consolation..
Well, wanting to be the first to join the parade Lewis quickly praised Nancy's fine decision. In a column in the left wing Daily Beast, Lewis writes “I am a conservative and Nancy Pelosi is right On Here.”
But impeachment is in trouble. Since it began, Fox News ratings are up, Trump's fundraising is up. There is no sign of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Pelosi in desperation has even floated an idea that Trump may have committed Bribery.
The framers were concerned that a President might be bribed by a King or foreign government, so it became an impeachable crime. But, Pelosi is not claiming that Trump was being bribed, she is claiming that he tried to bribe another country!
I doubt the framers considered, or were even concerned about, the President bribing a foreign government. Why would they? But Pelosi needs to find something impeachable.
She probably won't be able to find an impeachable crime. But she has an ally in Matt Lewis. So that is a nice consolation..
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
CNN Pundit Claims Walls Are "Slowly" Closing in On Trump
In an effort to advance the impeachment drive, which is stuck in neutral, CNN never Trumper Matt Lewis claims "walls are slowly closing in on Trump." He uses the qualifier 'slowly.' Yes, very slowly. At this rate Trump will be gone by 2024.
Since Lewis wrote this post, not one Republican in the House or Senate has come out In favor of impeachment. Or even voted for the inquiry. Why does Lewis believe the walls are closing in? He doesn't say. I chalk it up to wishful thinking.
Also in this piece Lewis shifts the burden from Democrats, pushing impeachment, to Republicans defending Trump and opposing impeachment:
"But what do you do with someone who simply doesn’t think it’s a big deal for the president to extort a foreign government and invite them to meddle in our elections?"
The burden is on Democrats to prove, or at least lay out the case for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If they don't have that this inquiry is a waste of taxpayer money and time.
Secondly, Trump didn't "invite them to meddle in our elections." In fact Trump never mentioned the 2020 elections with Zalensky. And Trump never'extorted'a foreign government.
One other point about the Lewis post. He takes a dig at the Trump operation by stating that Jared Kushner argued that the Trump campaign was "too incompetent" to collude with Russia during the 2016 election. He included a link to the story. I clicked it and read the story. Problem is Jared Kushner never said that the campaign "was too incompetent."
A baseless dig at Jared.
Since Lewis wrote this post, not one Republican in the House or Senate has come out In favor of impeachment. Or even voted for the inquiry. Why does Lewis believe the walls are closing in? He doesn't say. I chalk it up to wishful thinking.
Also in this piece Lewis shifts the burden from Democrats, pushing impeachment, to Republicans defending Trump and opposing impeachment:
"But what do you do with someone who simply doesn’t think it’s a big deal for the president to extort a foreign government and invite them to meddle in our elections?"
The burden is on Democrats to prove, or at least lay out the case for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If they don't have that this inquiry is a waste of taxpayer money and time.
Secondly, Trump didn't "invite them to meddle in our elections." In fact Trump never mentioned the 2020 elections with Zalensky. And Trump never'extorted'a foreign government.
One other point about the Lewis post. He takes a dig at the Trump operation by stating that Jared Kushner argued that the Trump campaign was "too incompetent" to collude with Russia during the 2016 election. He included a link to the story. I clicked it and read the story. Problem is Jared Kushner never said that the campaign "was too incompetent."
A baseless dig at Jared.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Lewis Calls Senator Graham a "Hack", and The Pot Calls the Kettle Black.
The impeachment of President Trump is a done deal. The Democrats have the votes in the House. No matter how weak the case, or the fact that there are no "High Crimes or Misdemeanors", the votes will be there. So soon the action will move on to a trial in the senate.
Well, before to long Democrats will start attacking Senate judiciary committee chairman Lindsay Graham(R-SC). Personally attack him! Undermine his credibility, while defending the credibility of House judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler.
Well, CNN's house Republican has already started the attack. Matt Lewis, who claims to be a Republican, but didn't join the 90 percent of his fellow Republicans in voting for Trump, has started with an attack on Graham.
On November 7th Lewis went on with Brooke Baldwin and called Graham a "partisan hack." Lewis argues that Graham, a House manager in the Clinton impeachment case in the 1990's, now opposes an impeachment of this President because Trump is a Republican. Graham is acting as a 'partisan'. This is comparing apples with oranges.
The difference which Lewis ignores is that Clinton actually broke a law. Perjury. He lied under oath. In the case of President Trump there is no evidence that he broke any laws, or at least none that Lewis can name, which the constitution requires.
It is ironic, that Lewis, who was brought on Brooke Baldwin's show to attack Graham, decides to call someone else a hack. An Irony which is sadly lost on Lewis.
Well, before to long Democrats will start attacking Senate judiciary committee chairman Lindsay Graham(R-SC). Personally attack him! Undermine his credibility, while defending the credibility of House judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler.
Well, CNN's house Republican has already started the attack. Matt Lewis, who claims to be a Republican, but didn't join the 90 percent of his fellow Republicans in voting for Trump, has started with an attack on Graham.
On November 7th Lewis went on with Brooke Baldwin and called Graham a "partisan hack." Lewis argues that Graham, a House manager in the Clinton impeachment case in the 1990's, now opposes an impeachment of this President because Trump is a Republican. Graham is acting as a 'partisan'. This is comparing apples with oranges.
The difference which Lewis ignores is that Clinton actually broke a law. Perjury. He lied under oath. In the case of President Trump there is no evidence that he broke any laws, or at least none that Lewis can name, which the constitution requires.
It is ironic, that Lewis, who was brought on Brooke Baldwin's show to attack Graham, decides to call someone else a hack. An Irony which is sadly lost on Lewis.
Lewis Claims "Haley Chose Personal Ambition Over Savin the Country."
Matt's latest column, "Nikki Haley is the Latest Adult in the Room to Exit with Pie on Her Face." Don't they teach in basic writing classes to avoid using hackneyed phrases like, "Adult in the room." Oh Well.
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has written a book, "With All Due Respect." The book recounts a story that General Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson approached her about making a move to remove President Trump. To Matt's chagrin she refused to go along. He says. "It's unfortunate that she chose to put her personal ambition above saving the country." Huh? Lewis failed to mention any of her reasons for not going along.
Haley said she respected the will of the voters (2016), and our constitutional process. Lewis goes on to opine, "her unfortunate choice to pander to this audience of one (Trump) is unlikely to even help her politically."
First, the President is her boss. She works for him, and if she was unhappy she could quit. But while she is working for him she should be loyal, which she was. Secondly, I don't believe she is thinking of politics. She probably isn't as cynical as Lewis. She believed in President Trump and happily accepted his appointing her to the UN. Kudos to President Trump for appointing her.
For the most part they saw eye to eye In her book she said she agreed with him most of the time.
In an interview Haley pointed out that Ukraine got their/our aid and that they never began an investigation of Hunter or Joe Biden. Lewis is unimpressed with this line. He calls "BS"! His argument is odd:
First, he claims Ukraine had to wait, "All summer." Gee, how long was that 3 months? And he gives a convoluted argument of a Quid Pro Quo:
Zalensky wasn't going to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden. But Matt, Hunter Biden is not Trump's opponent. Anyway, by Lewis' own statement there was no quid pro quo. The aid was released and Ukraine never began an investigation of Hunter Biden.
Lewis asserts, "It is really hard to take Haley seriously now.." Why? Well, Lewis thinks that by praising Trump to sell her book, she loses credibility. Well, maybe she thinks he is doing a great job as President. And will happily vote to re elect him. As will 90 percent of Republicans.
And finally, I read the column twice and I could not figure out his reference to "Pie on her face."
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has written a book, "With All Due Respect." The book recounts a story that General Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson approached her about making a move to remove President Trump. To Matt's chagrin she refused to go along. He says. "It's unfortunate that she chose to put her personal ambition above saving the country." Huh? Lewis failed to mention any of her reasons for not going along.
Haley said she respected the will of the voters (2016), and our constitutional process. Lewis goes on to opine, "her unfortunate choice to pander to this audience of one (Trump) is unlikely to even help her politically."
First, the President is her boss. She works for him, and if she was unhappy she could quit. But while she is working for him she should be loyal, which she was. Secondly, I don't believe she is thinking of politics. She probably isn't as cynical as Lewis. She believed in President Trump and happily accepted his appointing her to the UN. Kudos to President Trump for appointing her.
For the most part they saw eye to eye In her book she said she agreed with him most of the time.
In an interview Haley pointed out that Ukraine got their/our aid and that they never began an investigation of Hunter or Joe Biden. Lewis is unimpressed with this line. He calls "BS"! His argument is odd:
First, he claims Ukraine had to wait, "All summer." Gee, how long was that 3 months? And he gives a convoluted argument of a Quid Pro Quo:
"The aid flowed on September 11, just after the IG informed the House Intelligence committee about the whistleblower's complaint. What is more Ukrainian President Zalensky "planned" to announce his investigation of Hunter Biden on September 13th- an announcement was scuttled when Trump released the funds two days earlier."
Zalensky wasn't going to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden. But Matt, Hunter Biden is not Trump's opponent. Anyway, by Lewis' own statement there was no quid pro quo. The aid was released and Ukraine never began an investigation of Hunter Biden.
Lewis asserts, "It is really hard to take Haley seriously now.." Why? Well, Lewis thinks that by praising Trump to sell her book, she loses credibility. Well, maybe she thinks he is doing a great job as President. And will happily vote to re elect him. As will 90 percent of Republicans.
And finally, I read the column twice and I could not figure out his reference to "Pie on her face."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)