Leading off Thursday’s MTP Daily on MSNBC, host and NBC political director Chuck Todd did his best Chicken Little impression, staging through a hoarse voice an uncomfortable meltdown that declared America was in the midst of a “national nightmare” with President Trump “attack[ing]” our democracy.
So not only did Todd flaunt his support for impeachment while imploring Americans to come together and overthrow the Trump administration, but he later insulted millions on the right by painting them as what ills our political division (just like he did last week with one Republican Senator and in a commentary in December).
First, Todd’s deranged monologue that CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted out like a jazzed fanboy. Todd told viewers seconds into the program that “I don’t say this lightly, but let's be frank, a national nightmare is upon us” and that “[t]he basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President.”
Now, one could take Todd seriously, but the problem has been that Todd and his liberal pals have been going DEFCON-1 since Trump was elected. And even if this were a five-alarm fire with the future of the country in doubt, it’s remarkable how little faith Todd has in, well, anyone. But for him in particular, previous apocalyptic examples can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Referring to the President’s comments to reporters outside the White House, Todd proclaimed that Trump’s “series of admissions....all but assures his impeachment in the House of Representatives.” Acting like the pompous, self-described “referee,” Todd bludgeoned Republicans for being “largely silent” on what’s “a moment of truth.”
Doing what he’s previously done, Todd hid behind the Founding Fathers to level more partisan claims (click “expand”):
So what you just heard is a public admission of the allegations of the heart of the House’s impeachment inquiry and at the heart of the whistleblower's complaint. That the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is using the power of his office to solicit inference in the 2020 presidential election while doing it, relying on a debunked conspiracy theory or two....This moment should arguably be a national emergency. The Founding Fathers would have considered it a national emergency if the President publically lobbied multiple foreign governments to interfere in the next election and yet there has been virtually no condemnation from the President's party at all for this remark which was remarkable considering the precedent it would set and the lasting damage it would do to our democracy. It’s tough to say lightly, but this is the moment that we’re at.
A few minutes later, Todd brought in liberal historian Michael Beschloss to “bring this back to the Founders cause” and their fears about foreign countries wanting to topple America following the Revolutionary War to then suggest Trump was dishonoring them.
The pair then pivoted to blaming the collective right (and not anyone on the left) but especially congressional Republicans for not being as split as they would like or oppose the current President in the same way past parties did with presidents.
Beschloss lamented that “Republicans and the grassroots, according to the polls, loved Donald Trump,” while Todd expressed a repugnance for the tens of millions on the right for being too rigid and bemoaning how other Republicans weren’t listened to during the 2016 cycle.
Now, that would be fair if it weren’t for the fact that the liberal media elevated Trump and buried his competitors.
Todd continued airing his dismay with the right and, of course, Beschloss agreed by even assuring him that this wasn’t a situation of The Boy Who Cried Wolf (click “expand”):
TODD: Republicans find — have decided that they're afraid of condemning the behavior even if they say for they’re not for impeachment because it’s 100 percent fealty.
BESCHLOSS: That's where this is coming from and so what you don't see is with FDR and with LBJ, which is their own party in Congress saying I’m for some of the things that you are doing and not for others.
TODD: A lot of people sounded the alarm about Donald Trump three years ago. Today should be a moment that should be speaking louder to folks. It’s obviously not. Maybe — maybe I am wrong but it does not feel like it is. Is this a case that — that the wolf — we’ve been crying wolf for too long?
BESCHLOSS: No, it is a case of enormous support for Trump and the fact that, especially in the Senate, there are very fe — very few people are going to get in the way of that. Of all the things the framers did to restrain presidents, the one they dependant on most of all was —
TODD: The legislative.
BESCHLOSS: — Congress to say we disagree.
The interview ended with Todd noting how the legislative branch has willingly given away power to the executive branch. Like above, that would be a fair point and, in this case, a masterfully conservative one. But once again, it wasn’t to be thanks to Todd’s framing to mean that Congress hasn’t impeached and removed a president he doesn’t like yet.
Beschloss concluded by flashing his liberal elitism, asserting that Congress will remain weak “as long as Donald Trump dominates this party at the grassroots.”
What Beschloss overlooked due to his partisan blindness was that, if the left retained Congress, far-left ideologies involve mass expansions of the executive branch’s bureaucratic state at the expense of the legislative. Oops.
>>Help fight back against the media's impeachment crusade.<<
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s MTP Daily on October 3, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s MTP Daily
October 3, 2019
5:00 p.m. EasternCHUCK TODD: Welcome to Thursday. It is Meet the Press: Daily. Good evening. I am Chuck Todd here in Washington. I don’t say this lightly, but let's be frank, a national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President. We begin tonight with a series of admissions by the President that all but assures his impeachment in the House of Representatives. It’s a moment of truth for Republicans and they’ve been largely silent on what we’ve seen from the President. Today, he publicly called on two foreign governments to interfere in the presidential election by investigating on his chief 2020 political rival.
DAVID MARTOSKO: What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call exactly?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into Bidens. It is a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens because how does a company that's newly formed and all these companies that you look at and, by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. So I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, ill recommend they start an investigation into the Bidens because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked. That was the crooked deal 100 percent.
TODD: So what you just heard is a public admission of the allegations of the heart of the House’s impeachment inquiry and at the heart of the whistleblower's complaint. That the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is using the power of his office to solicit inference in the 2020 presidential election while doing it, relying on a debunked conspiracy theory or two. By the way, this is not hearsay. This is not a leak. This is not a whistleblower's complaint. It’s not a memorandum of a phone conversation. You heard the president himself do it on the White House lawn. This moment should arguably be a national emergency. The Founding Fathers would have considered it a national emergency if the President publically lobbied multiple foreign governments to interfere in the next election and yet there has been virtually no condemnation from the President's party at all for this remark which was remarkable considering the precedent it would set and the lasting damage it would do to our democracy. It’s tough to say lightly, but this is the moment that we’re at.
(....)
5:08 p.m. Eastern
TODD: To help us understand the gravity of this moment, I want to turn now to our presidential historian here at NBC News. It’s Michael Beschloss and Michael, I want to bring this back to the Founders.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Always a good idea.
TODD: Cause — cause I have you here, number one, and it’s because I can't emphasize enough how much foreign interferences and foreign especially manipulation and paranoia about it frankly in Philadelphia when they were, I mean, the bases of so many things in our Constitution has to do with this issue of foreign interference. The emolument clause being the best example of this, can you shed more light on this?
BESCHLOSS: Well, early on, they were worried about that, you know, and I can tell you just to tell the history that they were worried that countries that did not want to see the United States exist for very long may come in and use their influence and make sure that the United States was straggled in the cradle.
TODD: Or be a subservience to another power.
BESCHLOSS: And especially England because we had fought a war against England in the Revolutionary War and so the Founders and the Framers of the Constitution were very nervous then England would not necessarily invade the United States and win another war but they may use other means to get the victory that they could not get on the battlefield to the point that early leaders were very nervous, George Washington, for instance, as president, fired one of his secretaries of state, Edmund Randolph because he thought he was too close to the French.
TODD: So, you had a book last year that came out and I think it was President at War, if I’m not mistaken and you uncovered a fascinating nugget about the ‘68 campaign and Hubert Humphrey, if I’m not mistaken. Hubert Humphrey was offered foreign assistance —
BESCHLOSS: Wrote about it, yeah.
TODD: — and you wrote about how he was offered essentially foreign assistance from — over Vietnam.
BESCHLOSS: Yes, exactly. Well, presidential candidate for years were offered assistance by the Soviets quietly and sometimes other countries and rejected it pretty consistently. So, that is something that came up. Richard Nixon in 1968, you know, actually took the initiative of being in communication with the South Vietnamese and said, you know, I want you to drag your feet on a peace deal between the United States and the North Vietnamese and if you do that, you’ll get a better deal from me. Lyndon Johnson was furious about that when he heard about it.
TODD: So, what — what would you — what is your concern here now historically for the sort of the republic itself when you see the President setting these new rules and this becomes sort of accepted practice. That’s the — that’s the I think what we’re sort of trying to get our arms around.
BESCHLOSS: Well, we’ve seen that's happening in history before. You know, these period of enormous change. I would say this is on the order of about five big periods of change historically that we’ve seen in America life. I think the difference is what you were mentioning before. For instance, Franklin Roosevelt, you know, I’m not comparing it to the time of Donald Trump, but wanted to see big social change at the time of the New Deal. Gets reelected with this enormous congressional landslide in 1936 and finds that, although it’s a Democratic Congress, stood in his way because they didn’t particularly agree. Same thing happened with LBJ to a some extent in 1965. You know, another big landslide in congress, Democratic, and LBJ said to his people, you know, you may think I can do whatever I want for the next four years but my Democrats in congress are going to begin to rebelling because they may not agree of what I want to do and also some of these swing districts have to get reelected. That's the difference that we’re seeing because —
TODD: Right, well, it’s — the two parties are both monolithic.
BESCHLOSS: Right.
TODD: I mean, that’s — there used to — the parties used to truly be coalitions.
BESCHLOSS: Right.
TODD: So you’d have factions. There was an anti-Nixon faction. There would be anti —
BESCHLOSS: True.
TODD: — an anti-Johnson faction. There would be an anti-Kennedy faction. I mean, it was real and — and that is how you can get bipartisan consensus in a moment like this, correct?
BESCHLOSS: Yes and you’ve got, in this case, Republicans and the grassroots, according to the polls, loved Donald Trump.
TODD: Well, somebody reminded me. During the Clinton impeachment, Democrats could condemn Clinton’s behavior and — and also attack impeachment —
BESCHLOSS: Yes.
TODD: — and they were not punished in a primary for it. Republicans find — have decided that they're afraid of condemning the behavior even if they say for they’re not for impeachment because it’s 100 percent fealty.
BESCHLOSS: That's where this is coming from and so what you don't see is with FDR and with LBJ, which is their own party in congress saying I’m for some of the things that you are doing and not for others.
TODD: A lot of people sounded the alarm about Donald Trump three years ago. Today should be a moment that should be speaking louder to folks. It’s obviously not. Maybe — maybe I am wrong but it does not feel like it is. Is this a case that — that the wolf — we’ve been crying wolf for too long?
BESCHLOSS: No, it is a case of enormous support for Trump and the fact that, especially in the Senate, there are very fe — very few people are going to get in the way of that. Of all the things the framers did to restrain presidents, the one they dependant on most of all was —
TODD: The legislative.
BESCHLOSS: — Congress to say we disagree.
TODD: And the weakness of the legislative branch — it’s all — self-weakness. It has plenty strengths if they want to use it, right. They’ve just — they’ve just restrained themselves.
BESCHLOSS: Not as long as Donald Trump dominates this party at the grassroots.
TODD: Michael Besschloss, trying to bring a little historical perspective to this. Good to see you, sir.
BESCHLOSS: Thank you, sir.
TODD: Thanks for coming on.
