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

"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!

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:

"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.

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:

"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.

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!

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:

"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.

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.

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.