Put it simply, MSNBC’s Deadline: White House has become peak Resistance TV and a refuge spot for anti-Trump Republicans and readers of Resistance fan fiction. With help from her panel, host and former liberal Republican Nicolle Wallace bashed Democrats on Thursday as “cowardly” for not impeaching the “lawless” President Trump and taking a swipe at voters opposing impeachment.
Wallace teed up an interview with Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-MA) with this:
After the break, Nancy Pelosi dangles the i-word today as a way to combat the complete blockade of information, testimony, and document production from the Trump White House. But are Democrats really ready to ask? We'll ask a member of house leadership who joins us to detail the plan to fight White House stonewalling and a lawless President.
Unfortunately for Wallace, Clark refused to commit to trying to indict the President in what would be step one in removing him from office. In the following segment, Wallace admitted that she and MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude “were fuming in the break” at the rest of the Democratic caucus not making their dreams become reality.
Wallace complained that if Democrats think “that crimes were committed and that Mueller unearthed them...I don't understand why the fact that impeachment is polarizing is some sort — it makes them just as cowardly as the Republicans.”
Glaude and Wallace elaborated on their disappointment (click “expand”):
GLAUDE: [I]t's an abdication of their constitutional responsibility. If it's the case they believe the President of the United States committed a crime, if it is the case, that I think it is, that there is an argument being made aggressively about a unitarian executive, right, that in some ways, undermines the separation of powers it is incumbent upon the Democratic party, the party that runs the House, the house of the people, to hold — to be the bearer of the constitution, our democracy....You can't tell me on the one hand you're passing legislation knowing it's going to die in McConnell's Senate and tell me on the other hand that I can’t — we shouldn't impeach because it's going to die in the Senate. You think we're boo-boo the fool, when, in fact, what it is — what it is at the end of the day is that you lack courage. You lack courage. If you lack courage in this dark time, then our democracy is in peril.
WALLACE: Here’s the other thing. If you don’t think — if you think it's too fuzzed up. If you don’t think he did anything wrong in the Mueller probe, then that explains not pursuing impeachment. But I have not heard — I haven’t heard since the day the Mueller report came out, I have not heard a Democrat say that. They haven’t said it’s fuzzed up. They say there's clear evidence, and I think close to 700 prosecutors signed a letter saying if he were anyone other than the President, he would be indicted.
After NBCNews.com’s Heidi Przybyla compared the administration’s strategy on congressional investigations to an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, former TIME editor and Kerry State Department official Richard Engel fretted that “even the Nixon administration answered subpoenas during Watergate” and thus proving America’s “in trouble.”
Eyeroll.
Wallace again hit Democrats for not believing in the notion that they’re “going to hold him accountable because....that's [their] job and I don't see any gray there and, for the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats are helping the White House fuzz it up.”
She continued this open-door session with Stengel (click “expand”):
STENGEL:. So it's up against this, you know, T-junction where it's not going to any further. But your point is that it's the morally, ethically right thing to do.
WALLACE: If he abused his office —
STENGEL: And the constitutionally right thing to do.
WALLACE: — if he broke the law, if 700 prosecutors say if he was anybody else, he would be indicted, if Robert Mueller wrote, if he didn't no commit crimes and I will not exonerate him, then why? Then — then — then that is the cause and the effect should be Congress holding him accountable unless they reject Mueller’s findings and I haven’t heard any of them say that.
Axios’s Alexi McCammond had a final thought that shouldn’t be overlooked: “When I talk to voters across the country, they say it would be unwise for Democrats to move forward on impeachment and it’s not exactly clear why they think that, but they are very firm in their beliefs.”
Displaying a smug, Swamp-like mentality, Wallace replied by appearing to question the intelligence of voters thinking for themselves: “They think it because they’ve heard it from the White House. They’ve heard it from Republicans.”
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Deadline: White House on May 16, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s Deadline: White House
May 16, 2019
4:20 p.m. Eastern [TEASE]NICOLLE WALLACE: After the break, Nancy Pelosi dangles the i-word today as a way to combat the complete blockade of information, testimony, and document production from the Trump White House. But are Democrats really ready to ask? We'll ask a member of house leadership who joins us to detail the plan to fight White House stonewalling and a lawless President.
(....)
4:26 p.m. Eastern
WALLACE: So what does that look like? If it's harrowing, why is Nancy Pelosi sort of putting out a story to The Washington Post about she's keeping the caucus in order on impeachment, and no one is speaking out in meetings. Is that a sign of strength or weakness?
CONGRESSWOMAN KATHERINE CLARK (D-MA): You know, what we may have in our caucus is we may disagree on the best ways to pursue impeachment or not, but we are in 100 percent agreement in holding this administration accountable and that's what we're trying to do.
WALLACE: I guess, how do you do that if they sent you a 12 page letter saying “nah-uh, you're getting nothing” and your leader has said we're not impeaching him? Even the Justice Department will acknowledge privately there was some anticipation that the impeachment proceedings would be commenced and that would be the vehicle they would have to contemplate turning over evidence, so short of that, how do you do anything you would like to do?
(....)
4:38 p.m. Eastern
WALLACE: Is there any sense that the fact that impeachment is unpopular is the best defense of heading down that path? You — if it were popular, I assume you'd be facing a lot of questions from people like me about whether or not you were simply proceeding with impeachment because it was politically expedient. Is — are there any conversations privately because it's polarizing, because it's the politically perilous thing for you all to do, that's the justification for — if it’s what you described, if it's harrowing, I think that was your word, why not proceed with a process that gives you better tools? It seems that the White House isn't responding to the tools you've deployed thus far.
(....)
4:34 p.m. Eastern
WALLACE:. Eddie, we were fuming in the break — I was fuming. I won’t sell anyone out, but here's — here’s what I was trying to get at with the congresswoman. If impeachment were politically popular, I — I promise you the attack on Democrats would be that they were pursuing it because it was politically expedient. If she believes that crimes were committed and that Mueller unearthed them in the second volume of the obstruction report, I don't understand why the fact that impeachment is polarizing is some sort — it makes them just as cowardly as the Republicans.
EDDIE GLAUDE: Absolutely and it, to my mind, it's an abdication of their constitutional responsibility. If it's the case they believe the President of the United States committed a crime, if it is the case, that I think it is, that there is an argument being made aggressively about a unitarian executive, right, that in some ways, undermines the separation of powers it is incumbent upon the Democratic party, the party that runs the House, the house of the people, to hold — to be the bearer of the constitution, our democracy. Plus it’s just is a per formative contradiction. You can't tell me on the one hand you're passing legislation knowing it's going to die in McConnell's Senate and tell me on the other hand that I can’t — we shouldn't impeach because it's going to die in the Senate. You think we're boo-boo the fool, when, in fact, what it is — what it is at the end of the day is that you lack courage. You lack courage. If you lack courage in this dark time, then our democracy is in peril.
WALLACE: Here’s the other thing. If you don’t think — if you think it's too fuzzed up. If you don’t think he did anything wrong in the Mueller probe, then that explains not pursuing impeachment. But I have not heard — I haven’t heard since the day the Mueller report came out, I have not heard a Democrat say that. They haven’t said it’s fuzzed up. They say there's clear evidence, and I think close to 700 prosecutors signed a letter saying if he were anyone other than the President, he would be indicted.
HEIDI PRZYBYLA: Let’s end this discussion about if because based on my own reporting, the answer is yes, there are many Democrats that agree with Eric Holder that, in fact, the Mueller report was essentially a referral to Congress to have an impeachment inquiry, that there's enough there, especially in Volume II, that outlines multiple instances of obstruction but because it would die in the Senate they are not going forward with it and so now they're relegated to reading it on the floor, wherever they are in some conference room on C-SPAN that no one is watching because they believe they have to get the information before the American people. Their original plan was to have the hearings but now the stonewalling and obstruction has gotten so extreme they can't even have the hearings because they can't get witnesses, they can’t get the classified portions of the documents, which have been standard protocol in the past for these investigations.
RICHARD STENGEL: And you can argue those are part of a referral that he's obstructing justice every day, not just obstructing justice in volume two.
PRZYBYLA: But that's part of my reporting now is the obstruction going on now tantamount to Article III of the impeachment articles filed against Nixon, which was contempt of Congress.
WALLACE: Explain — explain — spend time on that.
PRZYBYLA: Contempt of Congress is essentially obstructing congress' ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to perform oversight. Nancy Pelosi called that letter that the White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, sent to her outrageous, because the argument the White House is making now is there's no oversight that you, Congress, as our — as a check and balance in our constitutional democracy can perform unless it has a quote/unquote legislative goal, which is completely, Nicolle, not the case.
ALEXI MCCAMMOND: And if you started impeachment, wouldn’t you not need that excuse to have a legislative goal? If you moved forward with impeachment —
PRZYBYLA: That was Pelosi’s point this morning, yeah.
STENGEL: Well and it's not the executive branch's responsibility to decide the legislative branch doesn't have legislative purpose. I mean, even the Nixon administration answered subpoenas during Watergate. You know, the thing is it’s a hard —
WALLACE: And any sentence that starts with even the Nixon administration. —
STENGEL: Then we're in trouble.
PRZYBYLA: But that’s where we are, though.
STENGEL: It is a hard decision, I'm not going to argue about that. I think it is, but I remember when I was going in the State Department, an old State Department hand said to me, you're going to face these decisions, you’re going to weigh these different things. When in doubt, do the right thing and that’s the — that to me is like when in doubt do the right thing.
WALLACE: I want — I just want to put this out there one more time and get your thoughts on this. I am not saying that impeachment — that — I've decided impeachment is the right thing to do. But there are some statements in politics where if X then Y, if X is I believe he committed crimes and that's what Robert Mueller's obstruction volume shows then Y is I'm going to hold him accountable because I'm Congress and that's my job and I don't see any gray there and, for the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats are helping the White House fuzz it up.
STENGEL: You know, I don't want to relitigate this, but I think there was a sense that some people had that when the Mueller report came out, the violations of law would be so egregious that it would end up persuading 20 Republican senators to vote for conviction. That obviously didn't happen. So it's up against this, you know, T-junction where it's not going to any further. But your point is that it's the morally, ethically right thing to do.
WALLACE: If he abused his office —
STENGEL: And the constitutionally right thing to do.
WALLACE: — if he broke the law, if 700 prosecutors say if he was anybody else, he would be indicted, if Robert Mueller wrote, if he didn't no commit crimes and I will not exonerate him, then why? Then — then — then that is the cause and the effect should be Congress holding him accountable unless they reject Mueller’s findings and I haven’t heard any of them say that.
MCCAMMOND: It seems there's a little bit of fear, a lack of cohesive message, they haven't won the messaging wars on this at all and I think Donald Trump, in a lot of ways, is winning the messaging wars on this by saying that the Democrats are crying
WALLACE: Totally agree.
MCCAMMOND: Because the Mueller report wasn't what they wanted. When I talk to voters across the country, they say it would be unwise for Democrats to move forward on impeachment and it’s not exactly clear why they think that, but they are very firm in their beliefs.
WALLACE: They think it because they’ve heard it from the White House. They’ve heard it from Republicans.
