With an array of guests, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews brought the histrionics on Tuesday after House Democrats finally unveiled Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, boasting that they were “push[ing] President Donald Trump closer to the brink of infamy” led by the “boss” (aka House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).
And to sing a tune long aired on CNN, MSNBC, and typed elsewhere, Matthews and guests asserted that Republicans were putting party over country, creating a “chilling” and “frightening” scenario that, by not voting to impeach and remove Trump, could threaten America’s very existence if he’s reelected.
Matthews started the show by boasting: “House Democrats pushed President Donald Trump closer to the brink of infamy today, introducing Articles of impeachment against a President for just the fourth time in American history.”
Moments later, he waxed poetic about the Articles of Impeachment’s magnificence:
[W]hat struck me is the economy of words, the sharpness and focus of the whole language. It reads almost like — I don't want to overstate it — but it's almost in constitutional language. There's no wasted language, there’s no distractions, discern — what do you call it — digressions at all. It's very tightly focused in wording[.]
Continuing his infatuation for Pelosi, Matthews gushed that “[t]here's no doubt who the boss is” in Pelosi as evidenced by her Tuesday morning press conference with a group of committee chairs because “she basically escorted them in, said who's going to talk” in both a “rehearsed” and “organized” manner.
On the topic of Republicans, Matthews fretted that their lack of support for impeachment had shown that they don’t comprehend “dire danger of our country if this President continues in the direction he's so clearly headed to over — overreach his powers.”
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) agreed, pleading for there to be “Caldwell Butlers in the current Congress” as there were during the Nixon impeachment. Matthews replied that “[t]here were a lot back then and there are none today, it seems.”
Before a break, Matthews went to the borderline emotional Maria Echaveste from the Clinton administration, wondering if Senate Republicans can avoid being “flacks” for Trump.
Echaveste unspooled quite the answer, wondering about the future of the Constitution and implored the GOP to remove him so he wouldn’t be able to be reelected or else (because, as the media show, the left never plays politics and only the right). Here it was in full (click “expand”):
ECHAVESTE: I have to say I can't think of — I can’t think of how they look good when from the President's own mouth, from the testimony that's been reviewed, even without testimony from White House officials and others who have personal knowledge of exactly what the President was trying to do, based on the evidence to date, it's very clear President Trump utilized his office to pressure a foreign government to take an action to benefit his political interests. That’s a — any other president if it were a Democrat, I cannot believe Republicans would let that go and that's why I keep going back to really what protects our country is our institutions. We have seen so much over 240 plus years —
MATTHEWS: I know.
ECHAVESTE: — it's our institutions and to have members who swore an oath to the Constitution put their personal ideological agenda — we've been fighting about the role of government from the very beginning, but to put that ahead of our country's interests especially when it involves national security is to me just chilling and frightening.
MATTHEWS: Chilling.
ECHAVESTE: Frightening.
MATTHEWS: If this guy gets re-elected, they might as well wear uniforms in the Congress.
In the B-block, Matthews kept up the nonsense, both in summarizing the Articles of Impeachment and having to make clear that he doesn’t see the GOP as “the party of evil” (click “expand”):
Well, it's hard to underestimate the gravity of this moment, even despite the powerful evidence that's been uncovered over the last two months. If this resolution is passed, it will mark only the third time in 230 years of American history that a President has been impeached by Congress....[TO ERIC SWALWELL] Congressman, let me ask you about this wonderful clarity today, but I think anyone who gets a good newspaper tomorrow or looks it up on a search engine or Google or whatever will be read in a very — I think very clear, almost constitutional artic — written set of Articles.
(....)
How does a Republican colleague of yours and I’m — and I’m — you know, it’s not the party of evil. They’re just wrong on this one, I think, and some other things, but how does someone defend the charge that Trump has obstructed when he hasn’t turned over a single piece of paper or a single live witness.
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on December 10, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s Hardball
December 10, 2019
7:00 p.m. EasternCHRIS MATTHEWS: House Democrats pushed President Donald Trump closer to the brink of infamy today, introducing Articles of impeachment against a President for just the fourth time in American history.
(....)
7:06 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: I was just reading before the broadcast closely the Articles that have been drafted by Judiciary, and what struck me is the economy of words, the sharpness and focus of the whole language. It reads almost like — I don't want to overstate it — but it's almost in constitutional language. There's no wasted language, there’s no distractions, discern — what do you call it — digressions at all. It's very tightly focused in wording[.]
(....)
7:08 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Maria, let's talk about leadership and politics. I guess we might talk about gender too. This is woman speaker who's making history tonight with these Articles of impeachment. I watched that press conference and we're looking at it right now. There's no doubt who the boss is. I mean, she brought — she basically escorted them in, said who's going to talk. It was rehearsed, organized. She was herding cats as we might say of any Repub — or Democratic group. It's not easy. Some people in that room didn't look too happy at the limitations she placed on them. I don't think Maxine Waters was happy with just two Articles. I don’t think Jerry Nadler was happy about the role he played, which was basically delivering the investigation by the Intel Committee and the fine work done by Adam Schiff, but they all did what they were told, it looked good.
(....)
7:13 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: You know, I was just making that point about the Clinton experience because I think it's important as the Democrats go into this and it is the Democrats, that they don't blur the past. Be honest about it. It was overcharging the President in those days and it wasn’t dishonest. It was just way overcharging — way overcharging Clinton.
ELISE JORDAN: Just accepting how difficult it was even in that era to have anyone cross party lines to vote to actually remove a president from office and what the odds are that probably President Donald Trump is going to remain in office because not enough Republicans are going to sway because they see no electoral benefit.
MATTHEWS: Not as many as we'd like perhaps. Congresswoman, I've got to get back to you. I've known you forever working for Don Edwards in the old days and what a guy he was,
CONGRESSWOMAN ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): He was.
MATTHEWS: And total honest politician, former FBI guy, great golfer, all the good stuff I should say. Just kidding. But, you know, I want to ask you, do you get any sense, I know the cloakrooms are different ends of the chamber, but is there any sense the Republicans know the dire danger of our country if this President continues in the direction he's so clearly headed to over — overreach his powers?
LOFGREN: Well, I think some do. You know, I haven't — I haven’t tried to press any member of Congress Democrat or Republican on how they should decide, because this is a matter of honoring your oath of office. It can't be lobbied by anyone, but I do know quite a few Republican members are troubled by the President's behavior. I don't know how they'll vote. I think the President has made it very difficult for members to exercise their — what he did to people who crossed him, I understand that, but in the end, you have to honor your own oath. I've been rereading the statements from the Nixon impeachment, and one of the things that struck me were the words of Caldwell Butler about how loyal he was to Richard Nixon and how much he liked Richard Nixon and how he thought Richard Nixon had done wonderful things, but when he saw the facts, he had to vote against a President of his own party because of the danger to our Constitution. I hope there's some Caldwell Butlers in the current Congress.
MATTHEWS: There were a lot back then and there are none today, it seems. I hope there are, though. I hope you're right, congresswoman.
(....)
7:16 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Maria, let me ask you a question. Is there a possible way — I know I'm asking you to do stargazing here — is there a way the Republican Senate can look good in this trial and not just flacks for the President?
ECHAVESTE: I have to say I can't think of — I can’t think of how they look good when from the President's own mouth, from the testimony that's been reviewed, even without testimony from White House officials and others who have personal knowledge of exactly what the President was trying to do, based on the evidence to date, it's very clear President Trump utilized his office to pressure a foreign government to take an action to benefit his political interests. That’s a — any other president if it were a Democrat, I cannot believe Republicans would let that go and that's why I keep going back to really what protects our country is our institutions. We have seen so much over 240 plus years —
MATTHEWS: I know.
ECHAVESTE: — it's our institutions and to have members who swore an oath to the Constitution put their personal ideological agenda — we've been fighting about the role of government from the very beginning, but to put that ahead of our country's interests especially when it involves national security is to me just chilling and frightening.
MATTHEWS: Chilling.
ECHAVESTE: Frightening.
MATTHEWS: If this guy gets re-elected, they might as well wear uniforms in the Congress.
(....)
7:23 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Well, it's hard to underestimate the gravity of this moment, even despite the powerful evidence that's been uncovered over the last two months. If this resolution is passed, it will mark only the third time in 230 years of American history that a President has been impeached by Congress. [INTRODUCES PANEL] [TO ERIC SWALWELL] Congressman, let me ask you about this wonderful clarity today, but I think anyone who gets a good newspaper tomorrow or looks it up on a search engine or Google or whatever will be read in a very — I think very clear, almost constitutional artic — written set of Articles.
(....)
7:24 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS [TO SWALWELL]: How does a Republican colleague of yours and I’m — and I’m — you know, it’s not the party of evil. They’re just wrong on this one, I think, and some other things, but how does someone defend the charge that Trump has obstructed when he hasn’t turned over a single piece of paper or a single live witness.
