In this Nov. 5, 2015, photo, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., speaks about the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Senate is poised to pass a bill on Nov. 10, that bans moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, something Barack Obama has been trying to do since he was sworn in as president. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

It’s incredibly ironic that Democrats, having pushed an unfair and solely partisan impeachment, would now try to claim that they were somehow treated unfairly because they can’t have new witnesses to supplement their insufficient case.

Fortunately, virtually every Republican got that point and shut down the effort to prolong the trial by calling new witnesses.

Indeed, there were 18 witnesses in the House proceedings. It was only the Republicans who were denied witnesses, as well as the ability for the president to have a lawyer and the ability to cross-examine the person who started it all – the whistleblower. The Dems had the opportunity to present all that witness testimony to the Senate. They, of course, withheld the testimony of the 18th witness, IG Michael Atkinson, likely because it was not helpful and pointed out the problems with the whistleblower.

Democrats demanded more witnesses after presenting their case. Imagine if you were the defendant in a regular criminal trial. The prosecution was your political opponent. Members of the jury were actually running against you in the election. Potentially exculpatory information was withheld. You hadn’t been allowed witnesses you wanted to call. And the prosecution had the temerity to claim they were the ones being treated unfairly and wanted more witnesses who they hadn’t bothered to get to help prove their case. It would never happen because it would be manifestly wrong, unconstitutional and unfair.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) got that and explained it was really a fiction that there were “no witnesses.”

Actually, the House interviewed at least SEVENTEEN witnesses. The House investigates, the Senate judges the case. The House has clearly not brought a strong case before the Senate. Period. Let’s move on, and keep this economy booming https://t.co/4ekamUM0rC

— Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) January 31, 2020

What did he get for his trouble and effort to explain? A racial attack.

SAD THAT MY FORMER BLACK SENATOR IS SUCH AN UNCLE TOM FOR TRUMP.

— “Nana” Ava Jordan (@AvaLjordan) January 31, 2020

Pretty despicable, not to mention ignorant. This woman is apparently unaware that in the book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the character is a heroic person who refuses to tell where escaped slaves have gone. But in any event, intends it as a slur.

She got called out but good.

This, everyone, is what we call liberal racism. This white woman thinks that a black senator needs to “know his place” and vote with the Democrats to prove to her that he’s black enough for her standards. What a perfect example to highlight.

— Johnathan Powell (@JohnathanPowell) January 31, 2020

Wow. That’s a very racist statement Nana.

— 🧣Nancy Faust 🧤 (@nancy_faust) February 1, 2020

Delete your account.

— The 🐰 FOO (@PolitiBunny) February 1, 2020

Wow, “Nana” this is by far the most glorious ratio I’ve ever seen. Your breathtakingly racist tweet is a ratio hall of famer! Congrats

— Pat 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇮🇱🇨🇦 (@nikeman310) February 1, 2020

He’s not black now?

— The World’s Foremost Authority (@RayShowRatio) February 1, 2020

If you were to take some to read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” you would quickly realize the stupendous ignorance that is inherent with that comment of yours.

That is, if you can read at all.

— Darrell B. Harrison (@D_B_Harrison) January 31, 2020

But Scott had the best response.

Just checked, still black. https://t.co/Viib2cNv8G

— Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) January 31, 2020