Mollie Hemingway has a fascinating—and terrifying—story in The Federalist about a conversation she overheard between Jerrold Nadler, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, and an unknown second party about how the Democrats plan to use their new majority in the House of Representatives once they take control next year.
Hemingway, who happened to be riding in the same train car with Nadler as they traveled from New York to DC, apparently couldn’t help but hear the loudmouth Dem as he laid down plans to seek revenge for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was confirmed after a contentious battle in which Senate Democrats—aided by their allies in the news media—waged an all-out campaign of character assassination using uncorrborated and even patently false accusations of sexual assault, a disgraceful abuse of the advise and consent process that is widely seen as the reason that Republicans made significant gains in the Senate even as they lost the House:
Nadler was headed to DC for a two-day planning session with his staff and Judiciary Committee staff. “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing,” he explained in a phone call with a friend. Nadler requested that the friend’s name be concealed on the grounds he is a private citizen.
His. . .plan is to go after Kavanaugh because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.”
Nadler was apparently discussing a. . .claim, since debunked, which is that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he denied hearing of The New Yorker’s disputed allegation involving Deborah Ramirez until the story came out. Considering that The New Yorker included a denial from Kavanaugh in its own controversial story, and was asking him about it right before publication, and he acknowledged all that in his Senate testimony, it’s unclear how fruitful such a perjury claim would be.
The caller then suggested that impeachment might still be worthwhile because the president elected in 2020 could nominate someone else. Nadler said the problem was that any investigation wouldn’t take long enough to last until the presidential election. “There are a finite amount of witnesses. I don’t see why it should take long at all,” he said. “We’re not talking about a 30-year scheme of getting money from Russians via hidden sources — that takes time.”
That was an apparent reference to Democrat beliefs in a dramatic and unsubstantiated theory that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. He promised it would also be an avenue that Democrats would pursue vigorously at the launch of the new Congress.
Nadler said Russia investigations would be under a broad umbrella of holding Trump “accountable,” since it’s a more palatable argument than impeachment, that they would be going “all-in,” and much of what they get to would be “depending on what [special counsel Robert] Mueller finds.” Still, he said the Judiciary Committee would only be in a supportive role to Rep. Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee, which has “a way ahead start on that.” Still, he said Judiciary “will have a role” in the Russia investigations.
Read the whole article. Just be sure to breathe and keep your blood pressure under control. Some duct tape to wrap around your head to keep it from exploding might not be a bad idea either.
Even though Nadler might look like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and one of those weird vilians from Sin City, I find it difficult to believe that he could be so stupid. Has he learned nothing from what happened to his fellow Democrats after the Kavanaugh fiasco? America was digusted enough with their antics the first time around. Now he wants to put the country through that wringer again?
Also, has Nadler even bothered to consider what it would mean to weaponize impeachment like that? Harry Reid killing the filibuster for Barack Obama’s judicial nominees already came back to bite Democrats hard when Mitch McConnell took a page from their playbook and ditched it from the Supreme Court. What does he think the Republicans will do the next time they take control of the House? The GOP would be foolish not to respond in kind and start impeaching liberal justices. Does he really want to unleash that kind of mutually assured destruction?
This business with hammering the whole Trump-Russia collusion story isn’t very wise, either. By all means, allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present his evidence—assuming he has any—but if all Democrats want to do is investigate, investigate, investigate, they’ll squander their opportunity to prove to the voters who gave them their majority that they’re actually capable of governing.
Don’t get me wrong–it’s not as if I’m hung-ho to see the Democrats succeed at anything. I still believe, however, that the country is stronger when power is divided and we’re forced to achieve consensus among all the competing interests. I can only hope that the Democrats who ran as moderates and won in traditionally Republican territory will see this madness for what it is, and put a stop to it before it has a chance to even start.