The midterm elections are still over a week away and MSNBC has already shifted to warning Republicans not to “overreach” should they win because “the public would turn against them.” Those comments were made by Politico White House bureau chief Jonathan Lemire to Andrea Mitchell Reports guest host Lindsey Reiser on Thursday as she tried to suggest that Republicans risk falling into the same trap they fell into when they impeached Bill Clinton.
Referencing an article from The Atlantic, Reiser broached the subject of impeachment, “All right, Jonathan, even Republicans who were interviewed in this article mention the Hunter issue, saying things got really vague when pressed for wrongdoing by the president. And the article mentions border security, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. How much pressure is McCarthy under to potentially follow through with this?”
After declaring the answer to be “an extraordinary amount,” Lemire sought to expand the conversation from not just impeachment, but also to routine investigations, “we’ve heard this from Matt Gaetz, we've heard this from Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the like, they want to begin these investigations and potentially impeachment proceedings almost immediately.”
It’s not just those two headline-grabbers that want to conduct investigations. Still, Lemire was quick to defend Biden in a way the media never defended Donald Trump, “We should be clear, there's never evidence of a link between President Biden and any wrongdoing that Hunter Biden may have committed, nor has he been charged with any wrongdoing just yet either.”
Addressing the likelihood that Republicans win at least the House, Lemire proclaimed, “If Republicans grab control of that body of Congress, they will have the subpoena power. They’ll be able to carry out a number of investigations and they could slow things down for this White House, trying to move forward.”
He then issued a warning to Republicans, “The risk, though, for Republicans, it could be guilty of overreach. It's possible the public would turn against them.”
No doubt Lemire will help Democrats spin that message in a way they did not do for current Democrat-run investigations. Checks and balances are about to become obstructionist again.
Reiser then tried to take the conversation back to impeachment. Addressing New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker, she asked, “Well, Peter Baker, some of this of this is reminiscent of another White House you covered, that was with the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton after Newt Gingrich took power. Where do you see parallels here?”
The media never suggested talk of impeaching Trump before he was inaugurated would doom Democrats, but what is currently just a hypothetical sets off their alarm bells.
For his part, Baker did not answer the question, instead he would go on to muse about impeachment generally, arguing the Clinton and Trump impeachments have cheapened the process because neither party is winning two-thirds of the Senate any time soon.
He did, however, argue that Republicans could exacerbate this, “they may not think he’s doing a good job on the border or on Afghanistan withdrawal or other things like that, but that's not typically considered to be a high crime or misdemeanor, so we may be evolving the system in that sense.”
Baker concluded by agreeing that the question is whether McCarthy will go along with impeachment even if most other Republicans oppose, which he probably wouldn’t because that’s how math works, but it is a great way for MSNBC to scare its viewers to vote for Democrats.
This segment was sponsored by BMW.
Here is a transcript for the October 27 show:
MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports
10/27/2022
12:29 PM ET
LINDSEY REISER: All right, Jonathan, even Republicans who were interviewed in this article mention the Hunter issue, saying things got really vague when pressed for wrongdoing by the president.
And the article mentions border security, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. How much pressure is McCarthy under to potentially follow through with this?
JONATHAN LEMIRE: An extraordinary amount. We hear frequently from members of the Republican House who say that if they take back the majority, we’ve heard this from Matt Gaetz, we've heard this from Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the like, they want to begin these investigations and potentially impeachment proceedings almost immediately.
We should be clear, there's never evidence of a link between President Biden and any wrongdoing that Hunter Biden may have committed, nor has he been charged with any wrongdoing just yet either, but this is something that does loom over this White House and I have some reporting this week about their feelings about the upcoming midterms, it’s some growing anxiety.
They do believe, though publically they still say they have hope, privately, the White House and a lot of Democratic allies do think the House is slipping away. It will be very difficult to retain control of the body and there's a possibility the Senate could as well. That's, sort of, deemed as a coin flip right now, a true 50-50 toss up, but all it takes is the House.
If Republicans grab control of that body of Congress, they will have the subpoena power. They’ll be able to carry out a number of investigations and they could slow things down for this White House, trying to move forward.
The risk, though, for Republicans, it could be guilty of overreach. It's possible the public would turn against them.
REISER: Well, Peter Baker, some of this of this is reminiscent of another White House you covered, that was with the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton after Newt Gingrich took power. Where do you see parallels here?
PETER BAKER: Well, I mean, you know, obviously, one thing we've learned about impeachments from the Clinton impeachment and even the Trump impeachments is that this is, you know, so far an inadequate measure to genuinely hold a president accountable if that's, in fact, your goal.
As long as you don't have two-thirds of your party in the Senate, the notion that you're going to convict a president and remove him from office, even under the most genuinely, you know, outrageous, you know, allegations are-- is pretty minimal.
And therefore, it's there, a political tool, a political way of attacking a president. That it's no longer a tool of accountability, at least as long as the current system prevails the way it does.
So, yeah, this would be a way of, you know, bringing things to light about President Biden. It may even be a way of exposing wrongdoing if there is any.
The kinds of things they are talking about, though. for the most part are policy differences or performance differences, not things that are normally thought of as high crimes and misdemeanors.
That would turn it much more of a parliamentary system where we have a, kind of, vote of no confidence when parliament thinks that the leader isn't doing a good job, you know, they may not think he’s doing a good job on the border or on Afghanistan withdrawal or other things like that, but that's not typically considered to be a high crime or misdemeanor, so we may be evolving the system in that sense.
But, I think that Jonathan’s point is right, which is, you know, it's a challenge as well for Kevin McCarthy. Will he actually go along with the far-right part of the caucus, even if most of the caucus frankly might not want to get involved in something like this. Investigations are one thing, impeachment's another and that’s a real test for him as well as President Biden.
