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.
No comments:
Post a Comment