On Sunday NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd edited a quote from Attorney General Bill Barr to promote a false narrative. The Barr quote came from an interview he did with Catherine Herridge about the Justice department dropping the Flynn prosecution:
"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."
Chuck Todd took this part. "Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history", and ignored the part where Barr said he believed it was a just move to drop the Flynn case.
Todd's angle was Barr was being cynical by saying well, history is written by the winners(us at DOJ) and right and wrong doesn't matter.
He didn't make a mistake, he twisted the meaning of the Attorney General's statement, to advance a narrative.
Well, fake news leftists stick together, so enter CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis, who tweeted:
"Ugh. The Chuck Todd/Bill Barr thing comes on the heels of the Jimmy Kimmel/Mike Pence thing.... We all make mistakes, but the media’s zeal to push back on Trumpism is ironically reinforcing Trump’s dangerous “fake news” narrative..."
Lewis expresses no anger at Todd's pushing a false narrative, rather he laments Trump being able to cite this to reinforce his "dangerous “fake news” narrative."
In other words Trump is right. The media lies. Chuck Todd getting caught is the mistake.
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Another Blown Lewis Prediction?
I used to think I could tell the difference between a Babylon Bee article and a Matt Lewis column. Now I am not sure I can anymore.
For example this from his column from April 4th on the left wing site The Daily Beast:
"With more than 6.6 million Americans filing for unemployment last week, and Donald Trump hoping that the coronavirus only kills 100,000 Americans, you might think things couldn’t get worse for his re-election chances. But then, you’d be leaving out the opportunity cost."
Yes, the President was hoping that only 100k die. But this shows that Lewis got another prediction wrong. The new projection is 74k dead. When Lewis wrote this back in April he lowballed the number for a strategic reason.
The projections were 100-200 thousand dead. Lewis picked the lowest number, because if it turned out to be 150K deaths it would be proof that Trump failed. Lewis would argue that was 50,000 above the minimum in the projection.
Proof Trump failed. 50,000 needless deaths
but, if the death total comes in under 100K (which Trump hoped for) what is the Lewis spin? Did Trump handle it well?
Like all of the other predictions that don't turn out, Lewis will, no doubt, keep a vow of silence.
For example this from his column from April 4th on the left wing site The Daily Beast:
"With more than 6.6 million Americans filing for unemployment last week, and Donald Trump hoping that the coronavirus only kills 100,000 Americans, you might think things couldn’t get worse for his re-election chances. But then, you’d be leaving out the opportunity cost."
Yes, the President was hoping that only 100k die. But this shows that Lewis got another prediction wrong. The new projection is 74k dead. When Lewis wrote this back in April he lowballed the number for a strategic reason.
The projections were 100-200 thousand dead. Lewis picked the lowest number, because if it turned out to be 150K deaths it would be proof that Trump failed. Lewis would argue that was 50,000 above the minimum in the projection.
Proof Trump failed. 50,000 needless deaths
but, if the death total comes in under 100K (which Trump hoped for) what is the Lewis spin? Did Trump handle it well?
Like all of the other predictions that don't turn out, Lewis will, no doubt, keep a vow of silence.
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
CNN Hacks Caught Using The Same Line
CNN is not in the news business, they are in the narrative business. The narrative is rooted in a progressive's ideology and an irrational hatred for Donald Trump.
This morning I was reading the latest commentary on a popular political site, and I read an article that used a familiar claim:
Purely wishful thinking. Trump's approval ratings went up and not one Republican voted to impeach him.
Now as the deaths from the Wuhan virus begin to slow down Acosta claims the "walls are closing in on Trump."
No real reporter would ever use the phrase "As the walls are closing in." It is just lazy to use such a hackneyed phrase. Even a bad fiction writer would eschew such a phrase.
But a CNN hack will use it - with fingers crossed no doubt.
This morning I was reading the latest commentary on a popular political site, and I read an article that used a familiar claim:
"Biggest Meltdown I've Ever Seen-Walls Are Closing In On Trump."And that reminded me of an article from last year, from another CNN hack:
Jim Costa CNN
"As the walls slowly close in on Donald Trump, his apologists are getting more creative."The idea that the "walls are closing in on Trump", is a fake narrative that CNN hacks will push from time to time, in conjunction with the "scandal" du jure. On the eve of the impeachment, an impeachment without high crimes and misdemeanors, Lewis predicted Trump's downfall.
Matt Lewis CNN token Republican
Nov. 2, 2019
Purely wishful thinking. Trump's approval ratings went up and not one Republican voted to impeach him.
Now as the deaths from the Wuhan virus begin to slow down Acosta claims the "walls are closing in on Trump."
No real reporter would ever use the phrase "As the walls are closing in." It is just lazy to use such a hackneyed phrase. Even a bad fiction writer would eschew such a phrase.
But a CNN hack will use it - with fingers crossed no doubt.
Saturday, April 4, 2020
Lewis Claims Coronavirus Comes At A Propitious Time For Biden
The great H.L. Mencken once remarked that the puritans greatest fear is that somebody, somewhere, is having fun. For the never Trumpers and lefties today their greatest fear is that Trump might politically benefit from this pandemic and get re elected this November.
The paranoia is great. The left engages in happy talk to calm such fears. CNN's never Trumper Matt Lewis, wishfully speculates in his latest column, "Trump’s Failed Coronavirus Response Cost Him Incumbent’s Edge", that is, this crisis is a major blow to Trump's re election chances and provides a boost to the 77 year old Biden.
Why? Well, a couple reasons Lewis asserts. First, the economy is tanked, so that helps the Democrats, and Trump now can't "mock and smear Joe Biden", in this time of crisis. It would be unseemly.
In his subtitle Lewis says:
"The coronavirus did what nothing else has: It neutralized Trump’s ability to humiliate a foe, while giving Biden the perfect reason to lay low." Excellent timing!
Biden is laying low because he stinks as a candidate. His handlers are wise to keep him away from real questioners and voters. And as far as humiliating Joe Biden, well in time, Biden will take care of that himself.
Other Lewis claims.
Lewis wants it both ways on the economy. On one hand Trump is willing to "sacrifice millions of lives", to get re elected, and as the theory goes Trump must re open the country, prematurely, to save the economy.
According to Lewis Trump is willing to risk the lives of America's senior citizens, and diabetics if that is what it takes to get re elected.
On the other hand if the economy is doing poorly this fall Lewis and his left wing allies will happily use it against President Trump.
Lewis also seems to contradict himself on another point. In a previous column Lewis asserted that "This is a man (Trump) who responded to a pandemic by thinking, “How can I be on TV more?” It’s truly depraved." Implying that Trump was using this pandemic to advance his election chances. The daily press briefings are akin to a Trump rally.
But in this column he takes the opposite position
Well, which is it? Trump likes the crisis for the attention it gives him, or does he want to change the subject?
Has Lewis considered the possibility that it is not changing the subject or playing politics, rather he is doing his job and rallying the nation to fight the pandemic.
Lewis's wishful thinking:
Trump has a job to do. It is not about Joe Biden. Sure right now, if there was no Chinese flu to deal with, Trump could be pointing out what a liberal Joe Biden is, how Joe Biden has opposed conservative judicial nominees for three decades. How Joe opposed the Reagan revolution. How Joe wants to put a gun grabber in charge of gun policy, how Joe supported the Iraq war. etc.
In addition Lewis speculates that had we not had this Chinese flu Trump could bring up "The Hunter Biden/Burisma “scandal." Oh, that's right. Biden's unqualified son got a job in the Ukraine, a country he was not familiar with, in the oil and gas business, an industry he had no knowledge of, because his father was in charge of US policy regarding the Ukraine.
I wonder if Hunter told his father that he was applying for a job in the Ukraine? A question that no one on CNN will bring up.
Also, Lewis fails to point out how Biden opposed Trump's decision, in late January to block travel to China, which Biden called "fear mongering". Had Trump listened to Biden hundreds of thousand of people would have been flying in and out of china to America, while the disease was spreading.
Lewis looks at the politics, but Trump has a job to do, and ultimately he is judge on that record.
The paranoia is great. The left engages in happy talk to calm such fears. CNN's never Trumper Matt Lewis, wishfully speculates in his latest column, "Trump’s Failed Coronavirus Response Cost Him Incumbent’s Edge", that is, this crisis is a major blow to Trump's re election chances and provides a boost to the 77 year old Biden.
Why? Well, a couple reasons Lewis asserts. First, the economy is tanked, so that helps the Democrats, and Trump now can't "mock and smear Joe Biden", in this time of crisis. It would be unseemly.
In his subtitle Lewis says:
"The coronavirus did what nothing else has: It neutralized Trump’s ability to humiliate a foe, while giving Biden the perfect reason to lay low." Excellent timing!
Biden is laying low because he stinks as a candidate. His handlers are wise to keep him away from real questioners and voters. And as far as humiliating Joe Biden, well in time, Biden will take care of that himself.
Other Lewis claims.
Lewis wants it both ways on the economy. On one hand Trump is willing to "sacrifice millions of lives", to get re elected, and as the theory goes Trump must re open the country, prematurely, to save the economy.
According to Lewis Trump is willing to risk the lives of America's senior citizens, and diabetics if that is what it takes to get re elected.
On the other hand if the economy is doing poorly this fall Lewis and his left wing allies will happily use it against President Trump.
Lewis also seems to contradict himself on another point. In a previous column Lewis asserted that "This is a man (Trump) who responded to a pandemic by thinking, “How can I be on TV more?” It’s truly depraved." Implying that Trump was using this pandemic to advance his election chances. The daily press briefings are akin to a Trump rally.
But in this column he takes the opposite position
Trump is a master at distracting us from big news stories. Except, with this one, he can’t just change the subject with a mean tweet. As Dr. Fauci has said, “The virus determines what the timetable is, not us.” (God help us if another story comes along that is big enough to overtake the COVID-19 headlines.)
Well, which is it? Trump likes the crisis for the attention it gives him, or does he want to change the subject?
Has Lewis considered the possibility that it is not changing the subject or playing politics, rather he is doing his job and rallying the nation to fight the pandemic.
Lewis's wishful thinking:
"Joe Biden was poised to be that sitting duck. Although his high name ID makes him less susceptible than past challengers to being “defined” by an incumbent president, one could certainly imagine a scenario where Trump would have unleashed ungodly amounts of money attacking Joe Biden this spring."
Trump has a job to do. It is not about Joe Biden. Sure right now, if there was no Chinese flu to deal with, Trump could be pointing out what a liberal Joe Biden is, how Joe Biden has opposed conservative judicial nominees for three decades. How Joe opposed the Reagan revolution. How Joe wants to put a gun grabber in charge of gun policy, how Joe supported the Iraq war. etc.
In addition Lewis speculates that had we not had this Chinese flu Trump could bring up "The Hunter Biden/Burisma “scandal." Oh, that's right. Biden's unqualified son got a job in the Ukraine, a country he was not familiar with, in the oil and gas business, an industry he had no knowledge of, because his father was in charge of US policy regarding the Ukraine.
I wonder if Hunter told his father that he was applying for a job in the Ukraine? A question that no one on CNN will bring up.
Also, Lewis fails to point out how Biden opposed Trump's decision, in late January to block travel to China, which Biden called "fear mongering". Had Trump listened to Biden hundreds of thousand of people would have been flying in and out of china to America, while the disease was spreading.
Lewis looks at the politics, but Trump has a job to do, and ultimately he is judge on that record.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Lewis Claims Biden is Smart to Lay Low.
When I was a kid I used to read baseball books. One was a series of books about a fictitious minor league baseball manager, Rocky McCune. In one story Rocky had a baseball prospect, a fiery left hander, who was destined to be the next Sandy Koufax. Or at least Rocky hoped that would be the case.
Well, it didn't go so well, for the young ace on his first trip to the mound. McCune's prospect got hit hard for 3 innings, and gave up several runs, Rocky came out to the mound to pull him. He told the kid, let's save your arm for next week.
Obviously, the reason for pulling his pitcher was that he wasn't doing well. The happy talk - we need to keep you fresh for next week.
Well, CNN's token Republican, and Biden voter, Matt Lewis has adopted the Rocky McCune spin regarding the candidacy of Joe Biden.
In Lewis's latest column, "Joe Biden is Smart to Get Out Of The Way.", he makes a couple false charges, in addition to his usually naked, silly spin.
First, Joe Biden is not smart. The reason he may soon go into hiding is because he has been a gaffe machine. My guess is that Biden doesn't realize he is doing poorly, but his certainly handlers do.
Lewis tries to spin it. Biden will be overshadowed by the President, since Biden has no official roll so it is "smart" to stay out of sight.
No. Biden has to stay quiet because he looks like a fool.
Joe Biden claimed, at least twice, that the virus started in the "Luhan" province of China.
Biden talked about an article he wrote in the USA Today on Jan. 17th. No, it was published on Jan. 27th. A significant difference, especially considering Biden's claim that he gave prescient advice on the growing crisis.
While doing an interview with Jake Tapper via skype, Biden started coughing. Tapper reminded him to cough into his forearm. Biden apologized, but said it is ok, he was alone in his house. I guess there were no cameramen, and Joe was running the sound system, and the computer as well.
Joe was asked by a reporter if he agreed with President Trump assessment that we can't make the cure worse than the disease. Biden responded,
Lewis makes no reference to these recent examples, rather, Lewis complains: "And now, while the president and governors are out there being relevant, Joe Biden is (like the rest of us) desperately trying to promote a podcast."
Yes, like the rest of us that keep referring to the virus as the "Luhan virus."
Lewis then had a eureka moment. He says:
The only option now for Democrats is to force Biden into the background because the more he speaks the worse he is going to look. Biden is senile, and the best strategy is for Biden to avoid cameras and voters as long as possible.
The view that Biden can come out after labor day, (Lewis doesn't say how long after labor day), all "tanned and rested", and able to perform like a young 77 year old, is optimistic to say the least.
It is Rocky McCune like optimism.
Well, it didn't go so well, for the young ace on his first trip to the mound. McCune's prospect got hit hard for 3 innings, and gave up several runs, Rocky came out to the mound to pull him. He told the kid, let's save your arm for next week.
Obviously, the reason for pulling his pitcher was that he wasn't doing well. The happy talk - we need to keep you fresh for next week.
Well, CNN's token Republican, and Biden voter, Matt Lewis has adopted the Rocky McCune spin regarding the candidacy of Joe Biden.
In Lewis's latest column, "Joe Biden is Smart to Get Out Of The Way.", he makes a couple false charges, in addition to his usually naked, silly spin.
First, Joe Biden is not smart. The reason he may soon go into hiding is because he has been a gaffe machine. My guess is that Biden doesn't realize he is doing poorly, but his certainly handlers do.
Lewis tries to spin it. Biden will be overshadowed by the President, since Biden has no official roll so it is "smart" to stay out of sight.
No. Biden has to stay quiet because he looks like a fool.
Joe Biden claimed, at least twice, that the virus started in the "Luhan" province of China.
Biden talked about an article he wrote in the USA Today on Jan. 17th. No, it was published on Jan. 27th. A significant difference, especially considering Biden's claim that he gave prescient advice on the growing crisis.
While doing an interview with Jake Tapper via skype, Biden started coughing. Tapper reminded him to cough into his forearm. Biden apologized, but said it is ok, he was alone in his house. I guess there were no cameramen, and Joe was running the sound system, and the computer as well.
Joe was asked by a reporter if he agreed with President Trump assessment that we can't make the cure worse than the disease. Biden responded,
"We have to take care of the cure. The cure can only make the problem worse."
Lewis makes no reference to these recent examples, rather, Lewis complains: "And now, while the president and governors are out there being relevant, Joe Biden is (like the rest of us) desperately trying to promote a podcast."
Yes, like the rest of us that keep referring to the virus as the "Luhan virus."
Lewis then had a eureka moment. He says:
"And then, it hit me. Joe Biden should social distance even more. He should recede into the background like Homer Simpson backing into the shrubs, only to reemerge tanned and rested after Labor Day. (As Andrew Card said, ''You don't introduce new products in August.”) He should embrace The 4-Hour Work Week."
The only option now for Democrats is to force Biden into the background because the more he speaks the worse he is going to look. Biden is senile, and the best strategy is for Biden to avoid cameras and voters as long as possible.
The view that Biden can come out after labor day, (Lewis doesn't say how long after labor day), all "tanned and rested", and able to perform like a young 77 year old, is optimistic to say the least.
It is Rocky McCune like optimism.
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Never Trumper Asserts "Trump is Willing to Sacrifice Lives to Try And Save the Economy and His Chances For Re-Election"
The latest talking point from the left is that President Trump is willing to "sacrifice" Americans lives to protect his re-election chances. The left's theory is that he has to reopen the country to prevent the economy from another depression, and hence any hope of being re elected.
So, like a virus, this nutty theory is running around, and like the sun rising in the east CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis advances it. In his column on the "Daily Beast", Lewis pushing this exact theory. It is amazing how the left daily sticks to the same page.
In the first sentence of "The Party of Life Embraces Trump's Death Cult", Lewis, who voted for pro-choice Joe Biden, asserts,
The unsubstantiated charge says more about Lewis and the left. That even while millions of their fellow Americans are thrown out of work, they grow more concerned about losing an election and raise paranoid theories that Trump might benefit politically from the national emergency.
The gist of the story, Lewis sums it up:
He claims that by reopening the economy, Trump will sacrifice "millions of lives." This is stupid for a number of reasons. First, once the economy is reopened, which the President is flexible on regarding the timing, no one has to leave the confines of their isolation. If someone feels vulnerable or sick they should stay home.
Social distancing and hand washing (and hand wringing) can continue.
Secondly, most people won't acquire the virus, after they go back to work. And the vast majority of people that do will live. Some even feeling nothing more than a minor, short flu.
The disease is serious, but it will diminish soon. It is rare in many parts of the country, and for millions of Americans if faced with a choice between a bad flu and a great depression would choose the flu. Trump represents those people. Hardworking, tough determined people.
Look at our history. When did a bad flu stop us? The settlement in Jamestown was wracked with disease; malaria, survey, dysentery, yellow fever... And the amazing thing, and as a Virginian I take great pride in the fact, people kept coming.
Lewis even implies that Trump likes the daily media coverage, which a national emergency brings, Lewis writes of Trump:
I suspect that this is a statement by someone, suffering, not from the Chinese flu, but from an equally vile, and unwanted condition - Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So, like a virus, this nutty theory is running around, and like the sun rising in the east CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis advances it. In his column on the "Daily Beast", Lewis pushing this exact theory. It is amazing how the left daily sticks to the same page.
In the first sentence of "The Party of Life Embraces Trump's Death Cult", Lewis, who voted for pro-choice Joe Biden, asserts,
"Donald Trump is willing to sacrifice lives to try and save the economy and his chances for re-election."
The unsubstantiated charge says more about Lewis and the left. That even while millions of their fellow Americans are thrown out of work, they grow more concerned about losing an election and raise paranoid theories that Trump might benefit politically from the national emergency.
The gist of the story, Lewis sums it up:
"Unfortunately, we have skipped over that nuanced discussion and gone straight to Republicans rationalizing the idea that we can just wipe out a million or so people to fix the economy."
He claims that by reopening the economy, Trump will sacrifice "millions of lives." This is stupid for a number of reasons. First, once the economy is reopened, which the President is flexible on regarding the timing, no one has to leave the confines of their isolation. If someone feels vulnerable or sick they should stay home.
Social distancing and hand washing (and hand wringing) can continue.
Secondly, most people won't acquire the virus, after they go back to work. And the vast majority of people that do will live. Some even feeling nothing more than a minor, short flu.
The disease is serious, but it will diminish soon. It is rare in many parts of the country, and for millions of Americans if faced with a choice between a bad flu and a great depression would choose the flu. Trump represents those people. Hardworking, tough determined people.
Look at our history. When did a bad flu stop us? The settlement in Jamestown was wracked with disease; malaria, survey, dysentery, yellow fever... And the amazing thing, and as a Virginian I take great pride in the fact, people kept coming.
Lewis even implies that Trump likes the daily media coverage, which a national emergency brings, Lewis writes of Trump:
"This is a man who responded to a pandemic by thinking, “How can I be on TV more?” It’s truly depraved."
I suspect that this is a statement by someone, suffering, not from the Chinese flu, but from an equally vile, and unwanted condition - Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Arizona Man Ingests Cleaner from His Fish Tank, Lewis Tries to Blame Trump
The left wing media is all over this story from Arizona. Seems a man, based on an alleged recommendation by President Trump, ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical, in the hope that it would prevent him from getting the Chinese flu.
Last week President Trump expressed the hope that a drug, Hydroxy Chloroquine, can help people recover from the virus faster. He never recommended chloroquine phosphate, which apparently is found in household cleaners.
The left claims they are similar enough, since they share the word "chloroquine". Well, what if Trump extolled the virtues of alcohol, and some guy drank rubbing alcohol and dies. Would Trump be to blame?
He did say Alcohol!
Probably according to lefties on CNN. For example:
On Twitter CNN's Matt Lewis tweeted, March 23rd, the NBC story of this Trump manufactured tragedy.
Lewis, after reading and forwarding the misleading story tweeted,
So let's get this straight, the President expressed hope in the drug Hydroxy Chloroquine, a guy in Arizona interprets that as an invitation to drink a chemical in a cleaner and dies, and the media blames Trump. Trump encouraged him to do it!
Gee, and who could possibly claim that the media is the enemy of the people?
Last week President Trump expressed the hope that a drug, Hydroxy Chloroquine, can help people recover from the virus faster. He never recommended chloroquine phosphate, which apparently is found in household cleaners.
The left claims they are similar enough, since they share the word "chloroquine". Well, what if Trump extolled the virtues of alcohol, and some guy drank rubbing alcohol and dies. Would Trump be to blame?
He did say Alcohol!
Probably according to lefties on CNN. For example:
On Twitter CNN's Matt Lewis tweeted, March 23rd, the NBC story of this Trump manufactured tragedy.
Lewis, after reading and forwarding the misleading story tweeted,
"So the presidents words have consequences? Who would’ve thunk it?"
So let's get this straight, the President expressed hope in the drug Hydroxy Chloroquine, a guy in Arizona interprets that as an invitation to drink a chemical in a cleaner and dies, and the media blames Trump. Trump encouraged him to do it!
Gee, and who could possibly claim that the media is the enemy of the people?
Monday, March 23, 2020
After 3 Years of The Trump Presidency Lewis Now says We Are Screwed.
CNN's token Republican optimistically claims this time Trump is done! The spread of the Chinese flu, which is apparently Trump's fault, has finally woken people up to the malignancy of the Trump presidency.
On March 20th on the left wing site, The Daily Beast, Lewis writes: "This is the first time a lot of Americans are personally paying any sort of price for this presidency." Lewis is like the boy that cried wolf. He constantly claims Trump is finished. It is not analysis, it is leftwing fantasy talk.
Penthouse forum letters were more reality based than Lewis's analysis of Donald Trump. In effect Lewis's writings are porn for the left.
Ironically, Trump's approval is on the rise. But for Lewis the end of Trump is always near.
Lewis wrote on March 20th about the propitious timing of the Chinese virus:
Compare that to what he said back in November of last year, on the eve on the impeachment, an impeachment without a high crimes and misdemeanors, Lewis wrote:
"postmodern cynicism?" How does Lewis come up with this drivel?
Well, things turned out fine for Trump. Not one Republican voted to impeach him. And only one Republican in the senate, Romney, who Trump didn't make secretary of state, voted to convict on one count.
Trump's approval ratings went up during the impeachment circus.
On March 20th on the left wing site, The Daily Beast, Lewis writes: "This is the first time a lot of Americans are personally paying any sort of price for this presidency." Lewis is like the boy that cried wolf. He constantly claims Trump is finished. It is not analysis, it is leftwing fantasy talk.
Penthouse forum letters were more reality based than Lewis's analysis of Donald Trump. In effect Lewis's writings are porn for the left.
Ironically, Trump's approval is on the rise. But for Lewis the end of Trump is always near.
Lewis wrote on March 20th about the propitious timing of the Chinese virus:
"Is a perfect storm brewing? Are the chickens coming home to roost? For the first time, a lot of Americans are being forced to reckon with the seriousness of a lack of leadership. This is the first time they have had to personally pay any sort of price for this presidency."
Compare that to what he said back in November of last year, on the eve on the impeachment, an impeachment without a high crimes and misdemeanors, Lewis wrote:
"As the walls slowly close in on Donald Trump, his apologists are getting more creative..." He then went on to opine:
"Our postmodern cynicism is such that even people who tacitly concede that Trump lacks the temperament and experience to be president are still left basically saying: “That’s just Trump being Trump. What’re ya gonna do?”
"postmodern cynicism?" How does Lewis come up with this drivel?
Well, things turned out fine for Trump. Not one Republican voted to impeach him. And only one Republican in the senate, Romney, who Trump didn't make secretary of state, voted to convict on one count.
Trump's approval ratings went up during the impeachment circus.
Monday, March 9, 2020
In Addition to Being a "Centrist" Lewis Claims Biden is "Likable"
It has been three years since Donald Trump was elected President and yet never Trumper Matt Lewis is still in denial about why he won.
In a tweet from today:
Trump didn't beat Hillary because she was unlikable, he beat her primarily because she was wrong on the issues, and Trump was right on the issues.
Was Hillary unlikable? If so, it might have had something to do with the fact that she had an open bank account, the Clinton Foundation, for foreign interests to make a deposit. She was the first Secretary of State to have a pay to play scheme.
But that would be corrupt behavior, not quite the same thing as just being unlikable.
In a tweet from today:
"Thought: It’s hurting Bernie that his 2020 opponent (Biden) is better liked than Hillary was in 2016.
Similarly, it’s going to hurt Trump that his opponent (Biden) is more likable than Hillary was in 2016.
How much of recent history was just about Hillary being unpopular?"
Trump didn't beat Hillary because she was unlikable, he beat her primarily because she was wrong on the issues, and Trump was right on the issues.
Was Hillary unlikable? If so, it might have had something to do with the fact that she had an open bank account, the Clinton Foundation, for foreign interests to make a deposit. She was the first Secretary of State to have a pay to play scheme.
But that would be corrupt behavior, not quite the same thing as just being unlikable.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Lewis Butchers the "Buckley Rule" to Justify Voting For A Liberal Democrat
For three years now CNN has brought pundit Matt Lewis on to denounce President Trump, and all the while a rotating and interchangeable hack at CNN, usually Brooke Baldwin have dutifully called him a Republican.
Well, today he was on again with Brooke Baldwin and he broke some news. He said he voted for Joe Biden in the Democrat party. Why on earth that counts as news I don't know, but I guess it gives them an opportunity to promote the Biden candidacy and denounce Trump. Always fun at CNN.
Based on what Lewis said in the interview it seems that Lewis has not voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since at least 2012. Yet CNN continues to claim that he is a Republican!
This morning Lewis posted a piece on the left wing site the Daily Beast, where else can you expect to find the writings of conservative pundits, explaining his vote today for the liberal Democrat Biden.
The most audacious claim Lewis makes in his piece is that he is following the advice of the patron saint of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley, by following the Buckley rule.
Either Lewis does not understand the Buckley rule, which is possible, or he is twisting it. Lewis writes "that is he supporting the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win." By winning Buckley clearly meant beating a liberal in a general election.
Lewis admits that he voted for a less liberal candidate in the Democrat primary, with the purpose of defeating a conservative Republican President.
Lewis rationalizes that since Biden is "more conservative" than the socialist Sanders, well who isn't, then he is being faithful to the Buckley rule. Well, Friedrich Engels was probably to the right of Karl Marx, but I doubt Buckley would have encouraged people to vote for Engels if the opportunity arose.
The origin of the Buckley rule dates back to the 1964 Republican nomination battle. The debate was over who should conservatives back for President. Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller, considered more electable, or Barry Goldwater the more conservative candidate.
After a long debate, Buckley said that the “National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate.” The word viable does not necessarily mean most electable. This is an important distinction. So they backed Barry Goldwater. He was conservative. Rockefeller was not.
Buckley never argued that anyone should vote for a non conservative. And since when did Joe Biden become a conservative? When he opposed Robert Bork? When he opposed Clarence Thomas?
Lewis may not like Trump, but no one can argue that Trump is not a constitutional conservative. He has cut taxes, deregulated the economy, appointed over 150 conservatives to the bench, including two SCOTUS picks. Trump has rebuilt the American military and Trump is enforcing our immigration laws.
All conservative positions. All the things Buckley would have supported and things Biden opposes.
The other problem with Lewis asserting the Buckley rule is that there is no evidence that Bill Buckley encouraged anyone to vote for Joe Biden in 1988, the first time Biden ran for President.
Buckley was writing about politics in 1988 and at least I don't recall Buckley mentioning the need for voting in the Democrat primary for Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is a pro choice Catholic. He has a 40 year liberal voting record, opposing all of Bill Buckley's beliefs. For Lewis to cite the Buckley rule as a reason to back Biden is offensive to all conservatives.
In his column Lewis admits "Still, voting for a Democrat feels utterly unnatural, and politics makes for strange bedfellows." Well, all last year Lewis was praising Nancy Pelosi. So by now he should be comfortable voting for Democrats.
Last month Lewis endorsed Amy Klobuchar. Now that she is out he is back to Biden. She should have stayed in the race. She would have gotten Lewis's vote.
Well, today he was on again with Brooke Baldwin and he broke some news. He said he voted for Joe Biden in the Democrat party. Why on earth that counts as news I don't know, but I guess it gives them an opportunity to promote the Biden candidacy and denounce Trump. Always fun at CNN.
Based on what Lewis said in the interview it seems that Lewis has not voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since at least 2012. Yet CNN continues to claim that he is a Republican!
This morning Lewis posted a piece on the left wing site the Daily Beast, where else can you expect to find the writings of conservative pundits, explaining his vote today for the liberal Democrat Biden.
The most audacious claim Lewis makes in his piece is that he is following the advice of the patron saint of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley, by following the Buckley rule.
Either Lewis does not understand the Buckley rule, which is possible, or he is twisting it. Lewis writes "that is he supporting the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win." By winning Buckley clearly meant beating a liberal in a general election.
Lewis admits that he voted for a less liberal candidate in the Democrat primary, with the purpose of defeating a conservative Republican President.
Lewis rationalizes that since Biden is "more conservative" than the socialist Sanders, well who isn't, then he is being faithful to the Buckley rule. Well, Friedrich Engels was probably to the right of Karl Marx, but I doubt Buckley would have encouraged people to vote for Engels if the opportunity arose.
The origin of the Buckley rule dates back to the 1964 Republican nomination battle. The debate was over who should conservatives back for President. Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller, considered more electable, or Barry Goldwater the more conservative candidate.
After a long debate, Buckley said that the “National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate.” The word viable does not necessarily mean most electable. This is an important distinction. So they backed Barry Goldwater. He was conservative. Rockefeller was not.
Buckley never argued that anyone should vote for a non conservative. And since when did Joe Biden become a conservative? When he opposed Robert Bork? When he opposed Clarence Thomas?
Lewis may not like Trump, but no one can argue that Trump is not a constitutional conservative. He has cut taxes, deregulated the economy, appointed over 150 conservatives to the bench, including two SCOTUS picks. Trump has rebuilt the American military and Trump is enforcing our immigration laws.
All conservative positions. All the things Buckley would have supported and things Biden opposes.
The other problem with Lewis asserting the Buckley rule is that there is no evidence that Bill Buckley encouraged anyone to vote for Joe Biden in 1988, the first time Biden ran for President.
Buckley was writing about politics in 1988 and at least I don't recall Buckley mentioning the need for voting in the Democrat primary for Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is a pro choice Catholic. He has a 40 year liberal voting record, opposing all of Bill Buckley's beliefs. For Lewis to cite the Buckley rule as a reason to back Biden is offensive to all conservatives.
In his column Lewis admits "Still, voting for a Democrat feels utterly unnatural, and politics makes for strange bedfellows." Well, all last year Lewis was praising Nancy Pelosi. So by now he should be comfortable voting for Democrats.
Last month Lewis endorsed Amy Klobuchar. Now that she is out he is back to Biden. She should have stayed in the race. She would have gotten Lewis's vote.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Lewis's Comparisan of Bloomberg and Trump Falls Flat
CNN's token Republican, and as of two weeks ago at least an admirer of Joe Biden's, is now concerned that the Democrats are moving towards backing former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Sorry Joe, Lewis and the never Trumpers are losing faith in your candidacy.
In his column on the left wing blog, "The Daily Beast", he warns "In Mike Bloomberg, Are Democrats Now Turning to an Authoritarian of Their Own?"
As with most all of Lewis's posts it is a veiled attack on President Trump. Lewis asserts, without any evidence, or examples, that Trump is an "authoritarian." I am still waiting for Lewis to name the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Trump to justify the impeachment charade.
Bloomberg is the Democrats Trump? All Lewis points to is his contention that they are both "authoritarians." How does Lewis conclude this? Bloomberg had his "stop and frisk" policy and Trump had his phone call with Ukrainian leader Zalensky.
Leaving that alleged shared trait aside Lewis fails to mention all the differences between Trump and Bloomberg. Bloomberg has very little public support. He is trying to buy the nomination. Trump on the other hand was outspent by his GOP rivals in 2016.
Despite being outspent Trump had popular grassroots support. Bloomberg has the support of the media and a handful of Democrats. That is it!
Trump was vigorously opposed by the establishment of his party. Bloomberg's hope lies in the establishment of his new party, not in rank and file party members.
In his column on the left wing blog, "The Daily Beast", he warns "In Mike Bloomberg, Are Democrats Now Turning to an Authoritarian of Their Own?"
As with most all of Lewis's posts it is a veiled attack on President Trump. Lewis asserts, without any evidence, or examples, that Trump is an "authoritarian." I am still waiting for Lewis to name the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Trump to justify the impeachment charade.
Bloomberg is the Democrats Trump? All Lewis points to is his contention that they are both "authoritarians." How does Lewis conclude this? Bloomberg had his "stop and frisk" policy and Trump had his phone call with Ukrainian leader Zalensky.
Leaving that alleged shared trait aside Lewis fails to mention all the differences between Trump and Bloomberg. Bloomberg has very little public support. He is trying to buy the nomination. Trump on the other hand was outspent by his GOP rivals in 2016.
Despite being outspent Trump had popular grassroots support. Bloomberg has the support of the media and a handful of Democrats. That is it!
Trump was vigorously opposed by the establishment of his party. Bloomberg's hope lies in the establishment of his new party, not in rank and file party members.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Lewis Stumbles On to The Truth, Trump "keeps winning, so why would he change."
In the wake of the acquittal of President Trump the left has come together with a joint complaint, a false narrative, that is President Trump should follow the Bill Clinton lead,the last President to be impeached, and apologize for putting the country through this needless ordeal.
Sounds fair? They both were impeached, Clinton apologized, so shouldn't Trump? Otherwise Trump may not have "learned his lesson."
This is the argument that MSNBC was pushing the other day, and of course, CNN's Matt Lewis wanted to join in. Lewis represents the CNN wing of the conservative movement, so they naturally brought him on to advance the narrative.
Well, the comparison between the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Clinton committed adultery with an intern, lied to his wife, lied under oath, and lied to the American people. Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..."
First, there is fundamental problem with the left and Lewis's claim that Trump failed to "learn his lesson". It implies that he did something wrong. But they know that Trump maintains his innocence.
Questioning if he has "learn his lesson", after he was acquitted, is like asking if he has stopped beating his wife.
Indeed Trump was overwhelmingly acquitted. A fact that Lewis didn't mention. Ironically Lewis wrote back in November of last year that the "walls were slowly closing in on Trump", and that Nancy Pelosi was smart, and justified in moving forward with impeachment.
Of course Lewis was totally wrong. But I digress. Back to his latest talking point.
What horrible thing did Trump do that warrants a national apology? Lewis doesn't make clear, except in this interview he simply refers to Trump's supposed lie, that the call with the Ukrainian leader was "perfect." Lewis splits hairs and claims that it wasn't really perfect. Wow a lie!
Lewis says,
Lewis praises Clinton's admission that he exercised bad judgement and that he apologized to the American people. Why can't Trump he wonders? Lewis then engages in pop psychology and says Trump has trouble admitting mistakes. He mentions that Trump said in 2015 that he didn't even ask God for forgiveness.
Lewis brings up the Trump quote from 2015 about not asking God for forgiveness because Lewis thinks it hurts Trump with evangelicals. It doesn't, and next time Lewis brings it up I will post a response as to why it doesn't move evangelicals away from Trump.
There is only one significant thing that Lewis says during the interview. Lewis inadvertently stumbles onto the truth. He says:
How is Senator Collins an enabler? Well, she didn't vote to convict Trump. Lewis doesn't mention that she didn't have any reason to vote to convict the President. There was nothing impeachable in either count and even if she did vote to convict him the Democrats would still be far short of the 67 votes needed to convict.
A successful President tries to get as many enablers as possible in the senate. With 51 senators a President stands a good chance at passing much of his agenda, and with 60 enablers in the senate a President can be great.
Trump's ability to acquire enablers in the senate is to his great credit. A point lost on Lewis.
Of course Lewis would prefer that Trump win less and apologize more, because Trump is a conservative. To Lewis Trump must be stopped.
I must say I don't understand why it is good to have a President that apologizes.
Sounds fair? They both were impeached, Clinton apologized, so shouldn't Trump? Otherwise Trump may not have "learned his lesson."
This is the argument that MSNBC was pushing the other day, and of course, CNN's Matt Lewis wanted to join in. Lewis represents the CNN wing of the conservative movement, so they naturally brought him on to advance the narrative.
Well, the comparison between the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Clinton committed adultery with an intern, lied to his wife, lied under oath, and lied to the American people. Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..."
First, there is fundamental problem with the left and Lewis's claim that Trump failed to "learn his lesson". It implies that he did something wrong. But they know that Trump maintains his innocence.
Questioning if he has "learn his lesson", after he was acquitted, is like asking if he has stopped beating his wife.
Indeed Trump was overwhelmingly acquitted. A fact that Lewis didn't mention. Ironically Lewis wrote back in November of last year that the "walls were slowly closing in on Trump", and that Nancy Pelosi was smart, and justified in moving forward with impeachment.
Of course Lewis was totally wrong. But I digress. Back to his latest talking point.
What horrible thing did Trump do that warrants a national apology? Lewis doesn't make clear, except in this interview he simply refers to Trump's supposed lie, that the call with the Ukrainian leader was "perfect." Lewis splits hairs and claims that it wasn't really perfect. Wow a lie!
Lewis says,
"It is one thing to do bad things, but you can't really forgive people if they haven't confessed, Donald Trump said it was a perfect call."Well, saying it was a perfect call, when really it was an imperfect call is hardly a sin requiring a national apology.
Lewis praises Clinton's admission that he exercised bad judgement and that he apologized to the American people. Why can't Trump he wonders? Lewis then engages in pop psychology and says Trump has trouble admitting mistakes. He mentions that Trump said in 2015 that he didn't even ask God for forgiveness.
Lewis brings up the Trump quote from 2015 about not asking God for forgiveness because Lewis thinks it hurts Trump with evangelicals. It doesn't, and next time Lewis brings it up I will post a response as to why it doesn't move evangelicals away from Trump.
There is only one significant thing that Lewis says during the interview. Lewis inadvertently stumbles onto the truth. He says:
"First off, all he does is win, thanks to enablers like Collins, he keeps winning, so why would he change.."
How is Senator Collins an enabler? Well, she didn't vote to convict Trump. Lewis doesn't mention that she didn't have any reason to vote to convict the President. There was nothing impeachable in either count and even if she did vote to convict him the Democrats would still be far short of the 67 votes needed to convict.
A successful President tries to get as many enablers as possible in the senate. With 51 senators a President stands a good chance at passing much of his agenda, and with 60 enablers in the senate a President can be great.
Trump's ability to acquire enablers in the senate is to his great credit. A point lost on Lewis.
Of course Lewis would prefer that Trump win less and apologize more, because Trump is a conservative. To Lewis Trump must be stopped.
I must say I don't understand why it is good to have a President that apologizes.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Lewis Claims Romney is Brave
Well, this was totally predictable. Just minutes after the senate voted to acquit President Trump, CNN's token Republican, and never Trumper Matt Lewis claimed that Mitt Romney was 'Brave' for voting to convict on one count. I think petty is the better word to describe Mitt Romney, aka Pierre Delecto.
I say predictable because last year when Romney started denouncing President Trump Lewis took to twitter and used the word brave, even claiming Romney was the bravest man in Washington.
Lewis makes a passing reference to it, but Romney really spilt his votes, he voted to convict on "abuse of power", and voted not guilty on "obstruction of congress". I guess in Lewis's mind Romney did the right thing on one article and the wrong thing on the other.
If Lewis thinks Romney did the 'right' thing that would mean that all 52 Republican senators did the 'wrong' thing. And for Lewis Republicans doing the wrong thing is the normal order of the universe, like the sun rising in the east. What else would a CNN guy say but Romney and Pelosi are brave, smart and principled. Big orange man bad.
As far as Romney being "brave" or a profile in courage, well lets compare his vote to the votes of other senators. Alabama Senator Doug Jones is in a tough re election battle. He must know that his vote to convict in a very red state will probably end his career in the senate.
Republican Susan Collins is facing election this year in a blue leaning state. She has a tough race. Probably the easier thing for her to do was to follow Romney. Yet by voting to acquit she stood up for the Constitution, which requires an actual crime to impeach.
Lewis wouldn't understand it, but it was Collins who was faithful to the Constitution, and cast a tough vote in Maine. She is more of a profile in courage than Romney.
Romney's rationale for voting to convict was extraordinarily weak. The charge "abuse of power" is not a high crime or misdemeanor, it is a characterization. The Constitution requires a crime. Romney didn't cite one.
If the Romney defense is that he went with his conscience fine. But you have to accept that he is constitutionally illiterate. That is, there is nothing impeachable in either charge.
Lewis thinks it is remarkable that Romney, who was the last Republican Presidential nominee, "voted to remove the current Republican President." But Lewis fails to mention that Romney didn't even vote for Trump in 2016.
True, Trump and Romney were both Republican standard bearers, but Trump voted for Romney in 2012. Romney didn't vote for Trump in 2016. Romney will never vote for Trump, and when given a chance to join Democrats and vote to remove Trump, well, of course he was going to do it.
Did Romney cast a tough vote today? I don't think so. He was recently elected to his six year term. He has plenty of time, and he may have decided to only serve one term. He is no spring chicken after all so one term may be enough.
I do believe that the main reason he decided to move to Utah and run was for the purpose of being a thorn in President Trump's side. That doesn't make him brave or principled. That makes him petty and small.
Ironically, last week Romney claimed the need for more "witnesses" and documents. But when it came time to vote to convict Trump he had all the information he needed.
I say predictable because last year when Romney started denouncing President Trump Lewis took to twitter and used the word brave, even claiming Romney was the bravest man in Washington.
Lewis makes a passing reference to it, but Romney really spilt his votes, he voted to convict on "abuse of power", and voted not guilty on "obstruction of congress". I guess in Lewis's mind Romney did the right thing on one article and the wrong thing on the other.
If Lewis thinks Romney did the 'right' thing that would mean that all 52 Republican senators did the 'wrong' thing. And for Lewis Republicans doing the wrong thing is the normal order of the universe, like the sun rising in the east. What else would a CNN guy say but Romney and Pelosi are brave, smart and principled. Big orange man bad.
As far as Romney being "brave" or a profile in courage, well lets compare his vote to the votes of other senators. Alabama Senator Doug Jones is in a tough re election battle. He must know that his vote to convict in a very red state will probably end his career in the senate.
Republican Susan Collins is facing election this year in a blue leaning state. She has a tough race. Probably the easier thing for her to do was to follow Romney. Yet by voting to acquit she stood up for the Constitution, which requires an actual crime to impeach.
Lewis wouldn't understand it, but it was Collins who was faithful to the Constitution, and cast a tough vote in Maine. She is more of a profile in courage than Romney.
Romney's rationale for voting to convict was extraordinarily weak. The charge "abuse of power" is not a high crime or misdemeanor, it is a characterization. The Constitution requires a crime. Romney didn't cite one.
If the Romney defense is that he went with his conscience fine. But you have to accept that he is constitutionally illiterate. That is, there is nothing impeachable in either charge.
Lewis thinks it is remarkable that Romney, who was the last Republican Presidential nominee, "voted to remove the current Republican President." But Lewis fails to mention that Romney didn't even vote for Trump in 2016.
True, Trump and Romney were both Republican standard bearers, but Trump voted for Romney in 2012. Romney didn't vote for Trump in 2016. Romney will never vote for Trump, and when given a chance to join Democrats and vote to remove Trump, well, of course he was going to do it.
Did Romney cast a tough vote today? I don't think so. He was recently elected to his six year term. He has plenty of time, and he may have decided to only serve one term. He is no spring chicken after all so one term may be enough.
I do believe that the main reason he decided to move to Utah and run was for the purpose of being a thorn in President Trump's side. That doesn't make him brave or principled. That makes him petty and small.
Ironically, last week Romney claimed the need for more "witnesses" and documents. But when it came time to vote to convict Trump he had all the information he needed.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Lewis Seeks Participation Trophies For House Managers
In his left wing column on "The Daily Beast", back in November of 2019, CNN's token Republican claimed, that Trump was in deep trouble. The impeachment hearings were about to get underway, and at that time it seemed that fake news CNN was reporting "bombshell" after "bombshell" almost everyday.
It was a heady time for a never Trumper like Lewis. The fall of Trump! Like a mirage in the desert Lewis could see it on the horizon. The big bad orange man would get his comeuppance.
On that bright November day, when all things seemed possible, Lewis began his column with the optimistic claim, "As the walls are slowly closing in on Trump..." He went on to praise Nancy Pelosi's decision to move forward on impeachment even without a crime, or any prospects of Republican support. Lewis exclaimed "Nancy is right on this one."
To give you an idea of how bad of a prediction, "the walls are slowly closing in on Trump" is, consider not one Republican in the House voted to impeach Trump, and odds are not one Republican in the senate will vote to convict Trump.
Well, if Nancy took Lewis's advice that was really stupid. I doubt she needed his help to make such a dumb move.
We are now on the eve of President Trump's acquittal. It would have happened today, but the petty Democrats in the senate can force a delay until after the state of the union on Tuesday.
Now, in a tweet Lewis today is suggesting that the senate "censure" President Trump. In a tweet Lewis writes:
No, on conviction but Lewis seems to be holding out the hope for a face saving censure. The House lost their case, but maybe they can get a consolation prize. Like kids in little league, on a losing team, they can get a participation trophy. That and the gold tipped pens that Nancy gave them might make it all worth it.
The senate has no business censuring a President for doing his job. The President runs foreign policy. He has an interest to make sure that foreign aid is properly spent. And if he wants to know what the previous administration was doing in a foreign country he can ask.
But this whole impeachment debacle may be a teachable moment. Two lessons to take from this. It takes High Crimes and Misdemeanors to impeach a President. And the second lesson - Don't take Matt Lewis's predictions seriously.
It was a heady time for a never Trumper like Lewis. The fall of Trump! Like a mirage in the desert Lewis could see it on the horizon. The big bad orange man would get his comeuppance.
On that bright November day, when all things seemed possible, Lewis began his column with the optimistic claim, "As the walls are slowly closing in on Trump..." He went on to praise Nancy Pelosi's decision to move forward on impeachment even without a crime, or any prospects of Republican support. Lewis exclaimed "Nancy is right on this one."
To give you an idea of how bad of a prediction, "the walls are slowly closing in on Trump" is, consider not one Republican in the House voted to impeach Trump, and odds are not one Republican in the senate will vote to convict Trump.
Well, if Nancy took Lewis's advice that was really stupid. I doubt she needed his help to make such a dumb move.
We are now on the eve of President Trump's acquittal. It would have happened today, but the petty Democrats in the senate can force a delay until after the state of the union on Tuesday.
Now, in a tweet Lewis today is suggesting that the senate "censure" President Trump. In a tweet Lewis writes:
"If (senators) Sasse and Alexander feel this way, the Republican Senate should at least censure Trump, no?"
No, on conviction but Lewis seems to be holding out the hope for a face saving censure. The House lost their case, but maybe they can get a consolation prize. Like kids in little league, on a losing team, they can get a participation trophy. That and the gold tipped pens that Nancy gave them might make it all worth it.
The senate has no business censuring a President for doing his job. The President runs foreign policy. He has an interest to make sure that foreign aid is properly spent. And if he wants to know what the previous administration was doing in a foreign country he can ask.
But this whole impeachment debacle may be a teachable moment. Two lessons to take from this. It takes High Crimes and Misdemeanors to impeach a President. And the second lesson - Don't take Matt Lewis's predictions seriously.
Lewis Distorts Murkowski's Statement
They say people can read anything they want to into any column, story or even press statement. The human mind can see what it wants, and disregard the rest. Indeed we live in very partisan times.
Today in a tweet, CNN's token Republican, and never Trumper, Matt Lewis provides a good example.
Senator Lisa Murkowski pulled the plug on the impeachment farce by voting against additional witnesses and testimony.
Why did there need to be new witnesses? I thought House Democrats claimed that they had an ironclad case. Apparently not.
Anyway, Senator Murkowski issued a statement announcing her no vote on witnesses, and Matt Lewis had an odd, or should I say distorted reaction. First, I will post her statement, and then Lewis's tweet about it.
Murkowski:
Lewis's tweet:
In her statement Murkowski is very tough on the House, indeed blames the House for mishandling the case. Lewis disregards that. She chastised the House, saying that the "articles of impeachment were rushed and flawed."
Lewis, on the other hand, praised Nancy Pelosi numerous times last year for her handling of the impeachment, a process that Murkowski described as 'partisan from the very beginning and throughout."
In his tweet Lewis says Murkowski acknowledged that it isn't a "fair trial." like the Clinton trial, but Murkowski didn't say it was unfair to House Managers. And she makes clear that the trial is unfair in part, because of the unfair process that began in the House.
In addition Murkowski is also alluding to the partisan positions of the senators today. She may have been referring to all the senate Democrats that are already on the record supporting impeachment. Senator Schumer publicly supported impeachment 10 months ago. Before the Ukraine imbroglio began.
For Lewis it is not "fair", because there are no witnesses. But that begs the question. A witness to what? High crimes and misdemeanors? Like Democrats, Lewis wants to drag this trial on, and while there are no witnesses to the President committing an impeachable offense, Lewis knows "witnesses" might be able to smear Trump.
He claims that Murkowski is to blame for not voting for witnesses. But Lewis is in denial. No witness, or set of witnesses could save this baseless and unconstitutional impeachment.
Today in a tweet, CNN's token Republican, and never Trumper, Matt Lewis provides a good example.
Senator Lisa Murkowski pulled the plug on the impeachment farce by voting against additional witnesses and testimony.
Why did there need to be new witnesses? I thought House Democrats claimed that they had an ironclad case. Apparently not.
Anyway, Senator Murkowski issued a statement announcing her no vote on witnesses, and Matt Lewis had an odd, or should I say distorted reaction. First, I will post her statement, and then Lewis's tweet about it.
Murkowski:
“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more.
The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.
“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.
“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded our institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.
We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.”
Lewis's tweet:
"It's really a remarkable statement. She laments that this isn't a fair trial, and then does her part to guarantee that her pronouncement is, in fact, correct."
In her statement Murkowski is very tough on the House, indeed blames the House for mishandling the case. Lewis disregards that. She chastised the House, saying that the "articles of impeachment were rushed and flawed."
Lewis, on the other hand, praised Nancy Pelosi numerous times last year for her handling of the impeachment, a process that Murkowski described as 'partisan from the very beginning and throughout."
In his tweet Lewis says Murkowski acknowledged that it isn't a "fair trial." like the Clinton trial, but Murkowski didn't say it was unfair to House Managers. And she makes clear that the trial is unfair in part, because of the unfair process that began in the House.
In addition Murkowski is also alluding to the partisan positions of the senators today. She may have been referring to all the senate Democrats that are already on the record supporting impeachment. Senator Schumer publicly supported impeachment 10 months ago. Before the Ukraine imbroglio began.
For Lewis it is not "fair", because there are no witnesses. But that begs the question. A witness to what? High crimes and misdemeanors? Like Democrats, Lewis wants to drag this trial on, and while there are no witnesses to the President committing an impeachable offense, Lewis knows "witnesses" might be able to smear Trump.
He claims that Murkowski is to blame for not voting for witnesses. But Lewis is in denial. No witness, or set of witnesses could save this baseless and unconstitutional impeachment.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Lewis Pins His Hopes on Bolton
CNN's token Republican today, in his column on the left wing site "The Daily Beast", seems to have pinned his hopes on John Bolton - St. John the neocon to the rescue!
Lewis excitedly claims that Bolton's testimony could have "the potential to move the needle" and that it is a "game changer." Maybe, but I think it's another example of Lewis engaging in wishcasting.
Perhaps he does this in the hopes of trying to please his CNN base. Perhaps Brook Baldwin will have Matt on her show tomorrow to discuss it. She and her small audience could use some cheering up. And when Don Lemon is done laughing at conservative voters maybe he will have Lewis on to discuss the impeachment trial.
Don Lemon likes to hear from conservatives like Lewis.
I can see Lewis on the show with the tag across the screen "Lewis calls the possibility of Bolton testimony game changer."
If you cut through the usual Lewis clichés, obvious wishful thinking, and as always with Lewis convenient omissions, you can come to a few conclusions.
I will spare you, and me, the reciting of all of the trite clichés Lewis employs, and his hopes, which are the usual never trumper fantasies, rather I will give a couple substantive observations.
First, Lewis is blissfully unaware of the constitutional requirements regarding impeachment. He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of a senate trial.
Ever the optimist Lewis says Bolton's testimony could lead to more 'evidence", an admission perhaps that even Lewis knows that there is nothing impeachable in either article. Lewis claims that Bolton's testimony "could snowball and you know, actually get to the bottom of things."
No, the point of the trial is to judge the case that the House has voted on and presented. Have they proved High Crimes and Misdemeanors or not? Not only have they not proved it. They have nothing impeachable.
The other thing, which is common in all of Lewis's propaganda pieces, is his convenient omissions.
For example, Lewis claims that the Republican opposition to allowing Bolton's testimony is "indefensible." Lewis fails to point out that House Democrats didn't subpoena Bolton. I guess his testimony was not that important.
John Bolton was fired by President Trump. A point that Lewis leaves out.
Lewis mentions Lev Parnas. He speculates that Lev Parnas may have some damaging info on Trump. Lewis fails to mention that the House didn't call him. If Parnas had evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors why didn't House Democrats call him during the impeachment hearings?
Lewis claims that
Tonight President Trump went up to Van Drew's district in New Jersey and held a rally with him. Turnout was great.
Despite his optimism in this post, Lewis has previously expressed skepticism that Bolton will help Democrats. On his January 23 post on the Daily Beast, Lewis speculated that Bolton probably wouldn't attack Trump for fear of alienating conservatives. And Bolton wouldn't want to do that since, "There are wars to be started… books to be sold!" A rich insult coming from Lewis who is with CNN and sells books.
Perhaps this is natural for bad writers of propaganda, but as always Lewis takes bizarre digs at people. He describes Senator Kelly Loeffler(R-GA) as "installed". Loeffler was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp to replace retiring senator Johnny Isakson.
Democrats need to pick up the seat this November. Lewis thinks that referring to her as "installed" rather than "appointed" may help Democrats.
And Lewis describes Senate Republicans as "craven". Another powerful word used by Lewis!
Lewis excitedly claims that Bolton's testimony could have "the potential to move the needle" and that it is a "game changer." Maybe, but I think it's another example of Lewis engaging in wishcasting.
Perhaps he does this in the hopes of trying to please his CNN base. Perhaps Brook Baldwin will have Matt on her show tomorrow to discuss it. She and her small audience could use some cheering up. And when Don Lemon is done laughing at conservative voters maybe he will have Lewis on to discuss the impeachment trial.
Don Lemon likes to hear from conservatives like Lewis.
I can see Lewis on the show with the tag across the screen "Lewis calls the possibility of Bolton testimony game changer."
If you cut through the usual Lewis clichés, obvious wishful thinking, and as always with Lewis convenient omissions, you can come to a few conclusions.
I will spare you, and me, the reciting of all of the trite clichés Lewis employs, and his hopes, which are the usual never trumper fantasies, rather I will give a couple substantive observations.
First, Lewis is blissfully unaware of the constitutional requirements regarding impeachment. He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of a senate trial.
Ever the optimist Lewis says Bolton's testimony could lead to more 'evidence", an admission perhaps that even Lewis knows that there is nothing impeachable in either article. Lewis claims that Bolton's testimony "could snowball and you know, actually get to the bottom of things."
No, the point of the trial is to judge the case that the House has voted on and presented. Have they proved High Crimes and Misdemeanors or not? Not only have they not proved it. They have nothing impeachable.
The other thing, which is common in all of Lewis's propaganda pieces, is his convenient omissions.
For example, Lewis claims that the Republican opposition to allowing Bolton's testimony is "indefensible." Lewis fails to point out that House Democrats didn't subpoena Bolton. I guess his testimony was not that important.
John Bolton was fired by President Trump. A point that Lewis leaves out.
Lewis mentions Lev Parnas. He speculates that Lev Parnas may have some damaging info on Trump. Lewis fails to mention that the House didn't call him. If Parnas had evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors why didn't House Democrats call him during the impeachment hearings?
Lewis claims that
"Republicans are being squeezed like never before. This trial just got a lot more interesting."In this sentence Lewis is of course engaging in wishful thinking, but also a little deception. Democrat Representative Jeff Van Drew didn't support impeachment and he was squeezed out of the Democrat Party. Lewis doesn't mention that.
Tonight President Trump went up to Van Drew's district in New Jersey and held a rally with him. Turnout was great.
Despite his optimism in this post, Lewis has previously expressed skepticism that Bolton will help Democrats. On his January 23 post on the Daily Beast, Lewis speculated that Bolton probably wouldn't attack Trump for fear of alienating conservatives. And Bolton wouldn't want to do that since, "There are wars to be started… books to be sold!" A rich insult coming from Lewis who is with CNN and sells books.
Perhaps this is natural for bad writers of propaganda, but as always Lewis takes bizarre digs at people. He describes Senator Kelly Loeffler(R-GA) as "installed". Loeffler was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp to replace retiring senator Johnny Isakson.
Democrats need to pick up the seat this November. Lewis thinks that referring to her as "installed" rather than "appointed" may help Democrats.
And Lewis describes Senate Republicans as "craven". Another powerful word used by Lewis!
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Lewis Calls Senate Trial a 'Sham', Says Democrats Can Take Moral High Ground
CNN's token Republican, and columnist with the left wing blog, "The Daily Beast", wrote today of the senate impeachment trial:
He dismisses it as a "non trial." The senate is a jury. They hear the arguments and will decide if they need to hear from witnesses or look at documents.
Why should they call witnesses if they don't need more information? Why should they hear from witnesses that didn't witness "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the President?
Lewis, like his allies on the left want a circus. They want to drag out this nonsense as long as possible. Most Senators already know how they will vote.
This column seems to be Lewis at his most depressed. He seems to concede that yes his side will lose the case, but they can hold the "moral high ground." What rubbish! How can they have the moral high ground? The process started in secret and then with a lie.
Rep. Adam Schiff claimed Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to "make up some dirt on my opponent." Lie! President Trump never mentioned the 2020 election in his call.
Lewis laments that in the Senate: "every single Republican senator voted to block emails, documents etc.." Well, in the House only Democrats voted to impeach. Lewis had no problem with that. That wasn't unfair, or partisan.
Lewis doesn't understand how this works. The House gathers evidence of "Bribery, Treason, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors." If they have the evidence to meet the constitutional standard they can impeach. Then send it to the senate.
Lewis says,
He is totally wrong. The Senate is not doing discovery. They are not building a case. They hear the case the House has. The articles and evidence that passed the House.
Lewis claims it is a sham. Why? He says that the "framework is understandably rigged toward the majority party." Nonsense! The two articles don't include a crime, which is required by the constitution.
Since the constitutional standard has not been met the articles should be summarily dismissed. The fact that the Senate will even give the House 24 hours is more than fair.
Lewis claims Democrats can still win in the end:
"If they can make it clear that this process was rigged from the beginning, they can lose this battle but still win the war."
By "rigged from the beginning" Lewis is not referring to Adam Schiff's secret hearings last year, or Schiff's discussion with the whistleblower, he starts the beginning to last week when Nancy finally sent the articles to the Senate. How convenient.
Finally, in his piece, Lewis fails to mention that House Democrats didn't subpoena Bolton. But in an obvious contradiction Lewis claims that if the Senate doesn't subpoena Bolton then the whole process is a sham!
And Lewis speculates that even if Bolton does testify he might not help Democrats. He seems to think that Bolton won't want to anger conservatives, since as Lewis says, "There are wars to be started… books to be sold!"
A rich insult coming from Lewis who is with CNN and sells books.
"The end result is a foregone conclusion. The only question is whether the Democrats can emerge from this non-trial with the clear moral high ground."
He dismisses it as a "non trial." The senate is a jury. They hear the arguments and will decide if they need to hear from witnesses or look at documents.
Why should they call witnesses if they don't need more information? Why should they hear from witnesses that didn't witness "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the President?
Lewis, like his allies on the left want a circus. They want to drag out this nonsense as long as possible. Most Senators already know how they will vote.
This column seems to be Lewis at his most depressed. He seems to concede that yes his side will lose the case, but they can hold the "moral high ground." What rubbish! How can they have the moral high ground? The process started in secret and then with a lie.
Rep. Adam Schiff claimed Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to "make up some dirt on my opponent." Lie! President Trump never mentioned the 2020 election in his call.
Lewis laments that in the Senate: "every single Republican senator voted to block emails, documents etc.." Well, in the House only Democrats voted to impeach. Lewis had no problem with that. That wasn't unfair, or partisan.
Lewis doesn't understand how this works. The House gathers evidence of "Bribery, Treason, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors." If they have the evidence to meet the constitutional standard they can impeach. Then send it to the senate.
Lewis says,
"if the goal is really to get to the bottom of the question of innocence or guilt, they would do this (interview witnesses that the House didn't)."
He is totally wrong. The Senate is not doing discovery. They are not building a case. They hear the case the House has. The articles and evidence that passed the House.
Lewis claims it is a sham. Why? He says that the "framework is understandably rigged toward the majority party." Nonsense! The two articles don't include a crime, which is required by the constitution.
Since the constitutional standard has not been met the articles should be summarily dismissed. The fact that the Senate will even give the House 24 hours is more than fair.
Lewis claims Democrats can still win in the end:
"If they can make it clear that this process was rigged from the beginning, they can lose this battle but still win the war."
By "rigged from the beginning" Lewis is not referring to Adam Schiff's secret hearings last year, or Schiff's discussion with the whistleblower, he starts the beginning to last week when Nancy finally sent the articles to the Senate. How convenient.
Finally, in his piece, Lewis fails to mention that House Democrats didn't subpoena Bolton. But in an obvious contradiction Lewis claims that if the Senate doesn't subpoena Bolton then the whole process is a sham!
And Lewis speculates that even if Bolton does testify he might not help Democrats. He seems to think that Bolton won't want to anger conservatives, since as Lewis says, "There are wars to be started… books to be sold!"
A rich insult coming from Lewis who is with CNN and sells books.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
My Rebuttal to the Lewis claim, "Republican Senators are Melting Down."
In his latest column on the left wing site the "Daily Beast", Matt Lewis employs one of his standard tricks. A promising title with a body that doesn't match. Lewis over promises and under delivers.
The title "Republicans Melt Down as Evidence Against of President's Guilt Pile Up." He offers no evidence of Republican Senators "melting down" nor does he give any evidence of the President's "guilt."
As far as his first point, evidence of Republican senators are "melting down." He cites an incident of Arizona senator Martha McSally telling a CNN "reporter" Manu Raju, who Lewis described as "mild-mannered" and "well respected", “You’re a liberal hack—I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.”
That is hardly evidence of a meltdown. It is not like she told Jay Sekulow, in the middle of losing a debate, "shut up, you are a partisan hack." Gee I wonder who did that?
The other Republican senator Lewis claimed "melted down", was Maine senator Susan Collins. Lewis said she exploded in anger over the idea of Lev Parnas testifying. How so? Well, Collins simply pointed out that if House Democrats wanted to hear from Parnas they should have called him before they voted to impeach the President.
The senate has no obligation to hear from witnesses that the House forgot to talk to.
And Lewis provides no evidence of Trump's guilt. The only new thing is a GAO report that said holding Ukraine aid violated Federal law. The report came from the GAO, which is an arm of congress. And they are wrong. The President has an obligation to make sure conditions have been met before foreign aid is release.
Lewis wonders whether Republicans can “defend the indefensible, or they can risk invoking the wrath of their president.”
Two points, the constitution requires high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach and remove a President. It is not about defending the President, it is about Democrats proving a crime- a high crime and misdemeanor.
Lewis ignores the constitutional requirement and pushes a new standard. A standard that says “indefensible behavior” is impeachable. What is "indefensible behavior?" Anything Democrats and CNN hacks say it is.
As far as "wayward Republicans feeling pressure". Well, yes, the President is going to expect, and pressure, fellow Republicans to help the defense in the senate. For the sake of the party and more importantly the country. He expects that they will speak out in favor of dismissing the unconstitutional articles.
Lewis concludes with a wish:
Lewis doesn't seem to understand the constitutional process. The House impeaches, based on evidence of "bribery, Treason or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." They send that evidence to the Senate to judge. The Senate doesn't look for evidence to boost the House's case.
Why does the senate need to hear from witnesses that the House has not already heard from. And why would the senate hear from someone that didn't witness the President commit high crimes and misdemeanors?
Lewis didn't answer those questions.
Back on November 2, Lewis wrote a column claiming that the "walls were closing in on Donald Trump." Now he claims, "Republicans senators are melting down." Both claims are false.
The title "Republicans Melt Down as Evidence Against of President's Guilt Pile Up." He offers no evidence of Republican Senators "melting down" nor does he give any evidence of the President's "guilt."
As far as his first point, evidence of Republican senators are "melting down." He cites an incident of Arizona senator Martha McSally telling a CNN "reporter" Manu Raju, who Lewis described as "mild-mannered" and "well respected", “You’re a liberal hack—I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.”
That is hardly evidence of a meltdown. It is not like she told Jay Sekulow, in the middle of losing a debate, "shut up, you are a partisan hack." Gee I wonder who did that?
The other Republican senator Lewis claimed "melted down", was Maine senator Susan Collins. Lewis said she exploded in anger over the idea of Lev Parnas testifying. How so? Well, Collins simply pointed out that if House Democrats wanted to hear from Parnas they should have called him before they voted to impeach the President.
The senate has no obligation to hear from witnesses that the House forgot to talk to.
And Lewis provides no evidence of Trump's guilt. The only new thing is a GAO report that said holding Ukraine aid violated Federal law. The report came from the GAO, which is an arm of congress. And they are wrong. The President has an obligation to make sure conditions have been met before foreign aid is release.
Lewis wonders whether Republicans can “defend the indefensible, or they can risk invoking the wrath of their president.”
Two points, the constitution requires high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach and remove a President. It is not about defending the President, it is about Democrats proving a crime- a high crime and misdemeanor.
Lewis ignores the constitutional requirement and pushes a new standard. A standard that says “indefensible behavior” is impeachable. What is "indefensible behavior?" Anything Democrats and CNN hacks say it is.
As far as "wayward Republicans feeling pressure". Well, yes, the President is going to expect, and pressure, fellow Republicans to help the defense in the senate. For the sake of the party and more importantly the country. He expects that they will speak out in favor of dismissing the unconstitutional articles.
Lewis concludes with a wish:
"I suppose it’s possible that at least four Republicans will, in fact, vote to allow witnesses, and that one of those witnesses will reveal something that is so explosive that 20 Republicans, having taken that oath, are forced to finally, reluctantly, cut Trump loose."
Lewis doesn't seem to understand the constitutional process. The House impeaches, based on evidence of "bribery, Treason or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." They send that evidence to the Senate to judge. The Senate doesn't look for evidence to boost the House's case.
Why does the senate need to hear from witnesses that the House has not already heard from. And why would the senate hear from someone that didn't witness the President commit high crimes and misdemeanors?
Lewis didn't answer those questions.
Back on November 2, Lewis wrote a column claiming that the "walls were closing in on Donald Trump." Now he claims, "Republicans senators are melting down." Both claims are false.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Sekulow Completely Owns Lewis
Yesterday, CNN's Matt Lewis posted this clip on Twitter. I thought it would be recent, but it was aired more than 2 years ago. Why would Lewis post it now?
Not sure. He may have thought that being in a spat with famed lawyer Jay Sekulow might be perceived as flattering. However, if he were to refresh his memory, and re-watch this clip, it would be obvious, even to him, that Sekulow totally destroyed him.
Now, CNN would not put Lewis up against Sekulow one on one, but Lewis was part of a panel with four liberals to question Sekulow. And when Lewis got his chance to engage with Sekulow, well, it didn't go so well for Lewis.
The spat centers on fired FBI Director James Comey talking to Independent counsel Robert Mueller. Is that appropriate considering that at the time Mueller was investigating the activities of Comey, whom Lewis describes as an "honorable man." In fact he used the word "honorable" several times.
You can watch the whole discussion, but here is the Lewis-Sekulow exchange:
Lewis: "I think Jay Sekulow came here tonight with a mission to discredit James Comey. I think this is a harbinger of things to come."
Sekulow: "Well, let me respond to that. Do you think it is ok, for a witness, which is what he is now, for Comey, to have discussions with special counsel as to what his testimony will be. Do you think that is ok?
Lewis: "Here is what I think is good.."
Sekulow: "No, Matt do you think that it is ok?"
Lewis: "Are you cross examining me? I am I under oath?"
Sekulow: "Yes"
Lewis: "You can't handle the truth Jay Sekulow. Guess what you are not hosting the show.."
Sekulow: "Right, but I am asking you a question."
Lewis: "How about I ask you a question.."
Sekulow: "Do you think it is ok for the special counsel to discuss testimony with a witness?"
Lewis: "I am not going to answer your questions."
Sekulow: "Just one."
Lewis: "you talk too much Jay Sekulow! You talk too much."
Sekulow: "Answer my question."
Lewis: "You are a partisan hack."
Sekulow: "A partisan hack that has argued a dozen cases before the Supreme court."
Lewis: "You can't shut up."
Then Anderson Cooper came in to save Lewis.
Lewis could not answer Sekulow's one measly question. Lewis got frustrated and resorted to name calling, "partisan hack". The "You can't handle the truth Jay Sekulow" line was Lewis's feeble attempt at humor.
Funny, Lewis actually posted this clip!
Not sure. He may have thought that being in a spat with famed lawyer Jay Sekulow might be perceived as flattering. However, if he were to refresh his memory, and re-watch this clip, it would be obvious, even to him, that Sekulow totally destroyed him.
Now, CNN would not put Lewis up against Sekulow one on one, but Lewis was part of a panel with four liberals to question Sekulow. And when Lewis got his chance to engage with Sekulow, well, it didn't go so well for Lewis.
The spat centers on fired FBI Director James Comey talking to Independent counsel Robert Mueller. Is that appropriate considering that at the time Mueller was investigating the activities of Comey, whom Lewis describes as an "honorable man." In fact he used the word "honorable" several times.
You can watch the whole discussion, but here is the Lewis-Sekulow exchange:
Lewis: "I think Jay Sekulow came here tonight with a mission to discredit James Comey. I think this is a harbinger of things to come."
Sekulow: "Well, let me respond to that. Do you think it is ok, for a witness, which is what he is now, for Comey, to have discussions with special counsel as to what his testimony will be. Do you think that is ok?
Lewis: "Here is what I think is good.."
Sekulow: "No, Matt do you think that it is ok?"
Lewis: "Are you cross examining me? I am I under oath?"
Sekulow: "Yes"
Lewis: "You can't handle the truth Jay Sekulow. Guess what you are not hosting the show.."
Sekulow: "Right, but I am asking you a question."
Lewis: "How about I ask you a question.."
Sekulow: "Do you think it is ok for the special counsel to discuss testimony with a witness?"
Lewis: "I am not going to answer your questions."
Sekulow: "Just one."
Lewis: "you talk too much Jay Sekulow! You talk too much."
Sekulow: "Answer my question."
Lewis: "You are a partisan hack."
Sekulow: "A partisan hack that has argued a dozen cases before the Supreme court."
Lewis: "You can't shut up."
Then Anderson Cooper came in to save Lewis.
Lewis could not answer Sekulow's one measly question. Lewis got frustrated and resorted to name calling, "partisan hack". The "You can't handle the truth Jay Sekulow" line was Lewis's feeble attempt at humor.
Funny, Lewis actually posted this clip!
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Lewis Should Name the High Crimes and Misdemeanors or Shut Up About Impeachment.
CNN's Token Republican Matt Lewis, in an article on the left wing site, "The Daily Beast ", said John Bolton should either come out publicly and tell us(at the impeachment trial) what Trump did wrong, or "shut up", about the Ukraine.
Well, along those lines I would propose that Lewis, name the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by President Trump or shut up.
Lewis and the other lefties at CNN have searched in vain for a justification to impeach the President. First, Lewis tried the magic words, "quid pro quo", then he tried, "bribery", and "extortion." Lewis was probably willing to cite the Logan Act, the Emoluments clause, the Boland Amendment, the Volstead Act, or anything else he thought might work.
However, House Democrats realized those charges wouldn't wash long before Lewis went to the internet to find out the meaning of "quid pro quo", and so they came up with two articles, "obstruction of Congress", and "Abuse of power." Neither are tied to any crimes.
The Constitution states:
Lewis, or anyone else at CNN for that matter, have ever given an example of such crimes that the Constitution requires for impeachment. My guess is that Lewis has read the Constitution and knows there is no case. But he, like House Democrats, want to create a political circus in the hope of damaging the President in an election year.
What reasons does Lewis give for John Bolton testifying? He claims that Bolton “would help shed light on a scandal that has loomed over our politics for five months.”
This is funny. The scandal was purely manufactured by House Democrats, and their lackeys in the media. Before the transcript of the President's call with Zalensky was released by Trump, Democrats were lying about what the President even said. For example the President never mentioned the 2020 election.
And they found a "whistleblower", who was not really a whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of anything. The folks at CNN don't even mention him anymore.
Lewis also claims that Bolton was “aware of some nefarious things.” The requirement is High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Not "nefarious things."
The senate should summarily dismiss the two articles for lack of an actual crime, which the constitution requires.
Well, along those lines I would propose that Lewis, name the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by President Trump or shut up.
Lewis and the other lefties at CNN have searched in vain for a justification to impeach the President. First, Lewis tried the magic words, "quid pro quo", then he tried, "bribery", and "extortion." Lewis was probably willing to cite the Logan Act, the Emoluments clause, the Boland Amendment, the Volstead Act, or anything else he thought might work.
However, House Democrats realized those charges wouldn't wash long before Lewis went to the internet to find out the meaning of "quid pro quo", and so they came up with two articles, "obstruction of Congress", and "Abuse of power." Neither are tied to any crimes.
The Constitution states:
"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Lewis, or anyone else at CNN for that matter, have ever given an example of such crimes that the Constitution requires for impeachment. My guess is that Lewis has read the Constitution and knows there is no case. But he, like House Democrats, want to create a political circus in the hope of damaging the President in an election year.
What reasons does Lewis give for John Bolton testifying? He claims that Bolton “would help shed light on a scandal that has loomed over our politics for five months.”
This is funny. The scandal was purely manufactured by House Democrats, and their lackeys in the media. Before the transcript of the President's call with Zalensky was released by Trump, Democrats were lying about what the President even said. For example the President never mentioned the 2020 election.
And they found a "whistleblower", who was not really a whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of anything. The folks at CNN don't even mention him anymore.
Lewis also claims that Bolton was “aware of some nefarious things.” The requirement is High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Not "nefarious things."
The senate should summarily dismiss the two articles for lack of an actual crime, which the constitution requires.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Lewis Claims Iran Saved Face. No, They Blinked!
CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis doesn't realize it, or maybe he does, but President Trump stood up to Iran, and they backed down.
His piece on the left wing site the Daily Beast, "The Trump Doctrine—Hem, Haw, Overreact Wildly, Then Clean Up Your Own Mess", is incoherent and almost unreadable. And like most pieces he writes, it is not what he says that matters, it's what he doesn't say.
Things Matt Lewis fails to mention:
First, The Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani was killing American soldiers before Trump was elected President. Trump did something about it. We are safer with Soleimani off the battlefield.
Secondly, Lewis fails to mention that President Trump has consistently opposed the Iran deal. Lewis describes a "mess", yet makes no mention of the Iran deal, which embolden the Iranian regime, and funded more terrorism.
To Lewis the mess started with Donald Trump. Apparently, before Trump we had no problems with Iran.
As a candidate, Trump said it was the "worst deal he ever saw." A deal that gave Iran everything they wanted. Including a plane full of cash.
And since money is fungible, the cash the Obama-Biden administration gave Iran helped them fund Soleimani's terrorist activities, which killed Americans.
Lewis doesn't mention either point. But he claims that when Iran hit some Saudi oil fields (not our oil fields) we did nothing about it. That may have emboldened, or sent a message of weakness to the Iranians. wow! This is what Lewis calls "inconsistent policy."
The Iran deal was appeasement. The President ripped up the deal. And he has encouraged other countries to also get out of the deal. That is not what Lewis calls, "speaking loudly and carrying a small stick."
Lewis writes:
"Just when it looked like we might be headed for World War III, it seems we found a way for Iran to save face and for Donald Trump to turn his inconsistency into a declaration of victory."
We weren't headed for World War III, and Iran didn't just "save face" they blinked. They had no intention of killing any Americans with Trump as commander and chief.
Lewis says "Consider what might have happened if Iran had killed some Americans last night--even if by accident?"
Again, his column makes no mention of it, but Soleimani has killed at least 600 American soldiers.
He was planning more attacks. What might have happened in the future if President Trump didn't order the strike?
Lewis doesn't ask that question.
Lewis concludes:
"For now, at least, it appears Trump’s bet paid off. All’s well that ends well, I suppose. But what about the next time?"
Well, if there is a next time, it is certain that Soleimani won't be involved. Thanks to Trump.
His piece on the left wing site the Daily Beast, "The Trump Doctrine—Hem, Haw, Overreact Wildly, Then Clean Up Your Own Mess", is incoherent and almost unreadable. And like most pieces he writes, it is not what he says that matters, it's what he doesn't say.
Things Matt Lewis fails to mention:
First, The Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani was killing American soldiers before Trump was elected President. Trump did something about it. We are safer with Soleimani off the battlefield.
Secondly, Lewis fails to mention that President Trump has consistently opposed the Iran deal. Lewis describes a "mess", yet makes no mention of the Iran deal, which embolden the Iranian regime, and funded more terrorism.
To Lewis the mess started with Donald Trump. Apparently, before Trump we had no problems with Iran.
As a candidate, Trump said it was the "worst deal he ever saw." A deal that gave Iran everything they wanted. Including a plane full of cash.
And since money is fungible, the cash the Obama-Biden administration gave Iran helped them fund Soleimani's terrorist activities, which killed Americans.
Lewis doesn't mention either point. But he claims that when Iran hit some Saudi oil fields (not our oil fields) we did nothing about it. That may have emboldened, or sent a message of weakness to the Iranians. wow! This is what Lewis calls "inconsistent policy."
The Iran deal was appeasement. The President ripped up the deal. And he has encouraged other countries to also get out of the deal. That is not what Lewis calls, "speaking loudly and carrying a small stick."
Lewis writes:
"Just when it looked like we might be headed for World War III, it seems we found a way for Iran to save face and for Donald Trump to turn his inconsistency into a declaration of victory."
We weren't headed for World War III, and Iran didn't just "save face" they blinked. They had no intention of killing any Americans with Trump as commander and chief.
Lewis says "Consider what might have happened if Iran had killed some Americans last night--even if by accident?"
Again, his column makes no mention of it, but Soleimani has killed at least 600 American soldiers.
He was planning more attacks. What might have happened in the future if President Trump didn't order the strike?
Lewis doesn't ask that question.
Lewis concludes:
"For now, at least, it appears Trump’s bet paid off. All’s well that ends well, I suppose. But what about the next time?"
Well, if there is a next time, it is certain that Soleimani won't be involved. Thanks to Trump.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Lewis Claims Biden is a "Centrist", Ignoring his 40 Year Record in Washington.
CNN's Matt Lewis claimed in an article in the left wing "Daily Beast" that Joe Biden is a "centrist."
In his article, (with a rather funny title), "Joe Biden's Bipartisan Rhetoric That Infuriates The Left Is Why Millions of US Like Him", Lewis says of Biden, "He is a norm upholding(?) statesman, who is a centrist, and a healer."
Lewis calls Biden a "centrist" because he thinks it helps Biden. It is just positioning. He knows a guy with Biden's record will have trouble getting elected. So he calls him a "centrist" and hopes people believe it.
One problem though! Joe Biden has been in Washington since 1973. And he has a very liberal record. Think about it. He represented a liberal state, and ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination 2 times, now a third.
In the 1980's Biden was an implacable, but fortunately for the sake of liberty, ineffective, foe to Ronald Reagan and the Reagan revolution.
The American Conservative Union gave Biden a lifetime rating of 12.07 (out of 100) conservative. By comparison Rep.Beto O'Rourke scored a rating of 8.08 for his time in Congress. Not much of a difference.
Joe Biden dropped out of the 1988 Presidential race because he was caught reading speeches given by another candidate. An English politician. Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke? No, the speeches of an English socialist, Neil Kinnock, who was complaining that students had to pay for college.
When Biden was elected Vice President, he sent Kinnock an invitation to the inauguration. I am not sure if Kinnock even RSVPed.
Biden voted against the Gulf War in 1990. For those who may have forgotten, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to steal their oil and money. Biden voted against the use of force. Oddly, Biden voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002.
Oh, and Lewis has praised Biden for his foreign policy "experience." These are focused group words, "centrist", "experienced", "statesman", "healer", "norm upholder"...
As far as Lewis's claim that "millions of us like him", I did hear Biden had an event in Iowa recently and 98 people showed up.
Look for Lewis to continue to call Biden a "moderate" and "centrist" in the weeks to come. If Biden falters, look for Lewis to jump to Bloomberg.
In his article, (with a rather funny title), "Joe Biden's Bipartisan Rhetoric That Infuriates The Left Is Why Millions of US Like Him", Lewis says of Biden, "He is a norm upholding(?) statesman, who is a centrist, and a healer."
Lewis calls Biden a "centrist" because he thinks it helps Biden. It is just positioning. He knows a guy with Biden's record will have trouble getting elected. So he calls him a "centrist" and hopes people believe it.
One problem though! Joe Biden has been in Washington since 1973. And he has a very liberal record. Think about it. He represented a liberal state, and ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination 2 times, now a third.
In the 1980's Biden was an implacable, but fortunately for the sake of liberty, ineffective, foe to Ronald Reagan and the Reagan revolution.
The American Conservative Union gave Biden a lifetime rating of 12.07 (out of 100) conservative. By comparison Rep.Beto O'Rourke scored a rating of 8.08 for his time in Congress. Not much of a difference.
Joe Biden dropped out of the 1988 Presidential race because he was caught reading speeches given by another candidate. An English politician. Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke? No, the speeches of an English socialist, Neil Kinnock, who was complaining that students had to pay for college.
When Biden was elected Vice President, he sent Kinnock an invitation to the inauguration. I am not sure if Kinnock even RSVPed.
Biden voted against the Gulf War in 1990. For those who may have forgotten, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to steal their oil and money. Biden voted against the use of force. Oddly, Biden voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002.
Oh, and Lewis has praised Biden for his foreign policy "experience." These are focused group words, "centrist", "experienced", "statesman", "healer", "norm upholder"...
As far as Lewis's claim that "millions of us like him", I did hear Biden had an event in Iowa recently and 98 people showed up.
Look for Lewis to continue to call Biden a "moderate" and "centrist" in the weeks to come. If Biden falters, look for Lewis to jump to Bloomberg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)