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.

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,

"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.

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.

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:

"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:

“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.

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.