CNN's token Republican is love sick. The source of his devotion? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of course. In his latest post "Pelosi Takes Her Shot At Trump. Lewis heaps such praise on Pelosi that if she read it she would no doubt blush. And anyone of serious intellect who reads it would most likely throw up.
The opening paragraph:
"Its on. Donald Trump-in case there is any doubt- will be the third President to join the ignominious list of Presidents to be impeached."
He may join the "ignominious" list but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong, especially since it will probably be on a party line vote. And if he is acquitted in the senate he will be vindicated.
Lewis describes this impeachment as "stunning and historic." No, it is not. Democrats have been planning this since Trump was elected, and even before he was sworn in.
Lewis takes a feeble shot at Trump defenders, saying what Nancy said was basically airtight. "If you are being honest you can't disagree", Lewis purrs. Perfect, if you will. Well, to a sycophant like Lewis that may be true, but to a thinking person, Pelosi's arguments are very weak both logically and constitutionally.
Pelosi, told reporters:
"The President abused his power for personal and political benefit." What benefit? And she went on to say, "seriously violated the constitution." This is total gibberish. Full of sound and fury, told (and counting Lewis retold) by an idiot signifying nothing.
The President said to Zalensky, "Do me a favor and find out what happened." How can that be illegal? The President runs foreign policy and would like to know what the previous administration was doing in the Ukraine. In no way does that violate his office, or abuse his power.
The legislative branch can't limit the speech of the executive.
Lewis says, "Most experts speculate that articles will include abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of congress, obstruction of Justice." What a bizarre sentence! "Experts speculate?" Not to digress but is that what experts do? They speculate?
Anyway, these are characterizations. It doesn't say what he did. It is like accusing someone of be a "fascist" or having "McCarty like tendencies" It is meaningless.
What are the specific charges against Trump? Lewis acknowledges that he doesn't know what they will be because he says he doesn't know how "wide of a net Democrats will cast." Meaning that they might bring back the Russian collusion hoax, or the emoluments clause.
Lewis has spent the last month trying to find an impeachable offense. And like the guy trying to find a needle in a haystack, Lewis has failed. He went from, "quid pro quo",(the only Latin he ever learned) to "campaign finance violation", to "pressuring" a foreign country, (yes, that is illegal), to Bribery.
Little does Lewis know that the constitutional prohibition on bribery was included because we didn't want our President being bribed by another country. The framers never considered, or were concerned about the President bribing another country! Isn't foreign aid bribery? But bribery is only ok when the Legislative branch engages in it?
Lewis gives his legal opinion by opining. "In my estimation Trump Obviously committed impeachable offenses." His estimation and 150 dollars can buy you a new tire at Pep boys.
Lewis has no idea what Trump did wrong. But in Nancy he trusts.
No comments:
Post a Comment