Every now and then, I like to sample the legacy media just to see what they are saying. On Sunday, I partook of the TDS-afflicted Chuck Todd, who is without question a Democrat operative (he once worked on leftwing Iowa Senator Tom Harkin’s presidential campaign). Wanting to see the NBC spin on the Democrats’ impeachment “inquiry,” I figured that Meet the Press would provide their party line – and boy, was I right about that! It was the first time I’d watched Todd since the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017. After suffering through part of the show, for comparison purposes, let’s just say that Todd is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.
Here are some of the lead-in points made before Todd interviewed Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) in order to give you an idea of NBC’s inherent anti-Trump biases. Additionally, I provide Todd’s Q&A with Klobuchar and then Senator John Kennedy (R-LA). My comments are interlaced throughout in brackets [ ].
A video clip of the President saying “game over” followed by Todd saying: attack the process as illegitimate, hoping to encourage swing district Democrats to vote “no” on impeachment
Todd continued his intro: ….The President has repeatedly called the impeachment inquiry a sham, scam, and hoax. The Republican strategy has been to focus on the impeachment process, delegitimize it, and scare newly-elected House Democrats in swing districts into voting against impeachment. Delegitimizing the process also makes it easier for many Republican senators like John Kennedy of Louisiana – perhaps – who will join me in a moment – to vote to acquit the President in an impeachment trial. Now Republicans are quick to point out that weeks of impeachment hearings have not increased the public’s appetite for impeachment. And while that’s true, it’s also hard to argue that having roughly 50% of the voters wanting you removed from office immediately is where any president wants to be right now as well. So to use the football terms, President Trump and the Republicans have beaten the spread on surviving the initial political fallout of all of this, but they’re a long way away from winning the game.
[Me: That’s the Democrat narrative: that Republicans are only concerned about process and the politics of “scaring” freshmen Democrats. Yeah, Chuck; never mind that during the hearings the Republicans destroyed every Democrat-picked witness during their cross-examination while exposing the unfairness of the star chamber for all the world to see. And where do you suppose the polls would be if there was even a modicum of balance and objectivity in the legacy media in their reporting on the Trump administration these past nearly three years? Bad football analogy, too, Chuck. In reality, it’s the 4th quarter, and the Democrats are down 49-0 without any hope of winning the game.]
He then cut to a Pelosi clip in which she asked the President to present some “exculpatory evidence.”
[Me: that’s not the way it works. Democrats failed to produce evidence of any criminal/impeachable actions; the request for “exculpatory evidence” is a political sham because that’s what Democrats are reduced to since Schiff’s hearings failed to make the case for impeachment.]
Then a video clip relating “new evidence that the President knew about the whistleblower before he released the aid to Ukraine.”
[Me: And what is that supposed to prove? Ukraine got the aid; it’s immaterial.]
Then a clip on how Republicans have spent $7M on anti-impeachment ads while Democrats (almost exclusively Tom Steyer) have “only” spent ~$3M since Pelosi announced the inquiry.
[Me: LMAO! The DNC is in debt; if they had the cash, they’d have bombarded the airwaves with their impeachment narrative. Was that supposed to generate sympathy for Democrats in some way?]
Then a clip stating that “In a CNN poll, 50% of adults support impeachment while 43% don’t – numbers unchanged from a month ago.” And, “a Quinnipiac poll shows similar numbers, with 45% supporting impeachment with 48% against.” “With just 13% saying they might change their minds.”
[Me: The polls cited? CNN and Quinnipiac – leftwing push polls of “adults” as opposed to the more meaningful category of likely voters. A typical trick to get the numbers they seek. They ignore completely that real polls are trending against impeachment after watching the Democrats’ farce.]
More video: “While 2020 Democrats support impeachment, they are not enthusiastic about campaigning on it.”
[Me: damn straight they’re not campaigning on impeachment because their own internal polls show that that is a losing issue for them.]
After introducing Klobuchar, Todd asked this softball question: …what role does public opinion play in this (impeachment) for you? No matter what you think of the facts, we’re at a public opinion stalemate.
Klobuchar: The first obligation is a constitutional one. We don’t have a choice. This is something where the Founding Fathers themselves … James Madison said that the reason we needed impeachment provisions is that he feared that a president would betray the trust of the American people to a foreign power. That’s why this is proceeding. I see it simply as a “global Watergate.” Back then, you had a president in Richard Nixon who was paranoid, and he delegated to some people to go break into the headquarters and get into a file cabinet to get dirt on a political opponent. That’s basically what this president has done on a global basis. Yes, it’s a public trial, and the public will be able to see more and will be able to reach their own decisions, but in the end, it’s our constitutional obligation….
[Me: absurd. Madison’s case for impeachment wasn’t “betraying the trust of the American people to a foreign power.” The reason was bribery in which a foreign power bribed and thereby controlled a president against the interests of the US. And the phrase “this is what this president has done on a global basis”? That’s complete B.S. bordering on insanity. Where’s the evidence, Amy? Your pals in the House delivered nothing in that regard.]
Todd: Here’s a quote from Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI). “We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.” That is one way to look at this public opinion – that people are torn on this election versus this (impeachment process). …. Is that what you hear?
Klobuchar: (stuttering) Let’s talk about how I see this. Yes, this is a legal impeachment proceeding, and it could result in him being thrown out of office; that is true. But I see this as part of a bigger pattern, and the pattern is this. He betrays the trust of the American people. He puts his private interests, he puts his business interests, he puts his partisan political interests in front of our country’s. That’s what people get. That’s why you see, for instance, that fact that he went out there and rallied for Republicans in Louisiana and Kentucky, and the Democrats won. We have a new Democrat governor in Kentucky, and that is because he betrayed us on healthcare. We haven’t been able to get the healthcare that we want.
[Me: the Democrats have been repeating those claims about the President for nearly three years now. Where’s the evidence? Just because they repeat that narrative doesn’t make it true in any way, shape, or form. And the Democrats won the governorship in Kentucky because the incumbent Republican wasn’t well-liked. It was about local, not national, issues. And the fact that she ignores is that Republican Matt Bevin was down in the polls by about 15% before the President’s rally turned the election into a horse-race won by a few thousand votes. She willfully ignores the President’s popularity and impact.]
Todd: Do you fear though what he could do? How he would interpret a Senate acquittal?
Klobuchar: I have no idea what he will do. All I know is that we have an obligation to the country to lead, to have this proceeding be conducted fairly – which I believe it has. It was all in public in the last week. People got to see people like LTC Vindman who made the point that this is a country where you could tell the truth. I think the importance is that it’s fair, and that we get a result.
[Me: it made me wretch watching her defend an Army O-5 who should have been brought up on UCMJ charges.]
Todd: The Republicans have poured millions of dollars into these swing districts with an anti-impeachment message. Democrats have not countered, and I understand why they haven’t. They don’t want to look like they’re politicizing the process, and yet, what’s happening? It’s asymmetrical warfare, and you’re losing the political argument and public opinion. Are Democrats making a mistake by not using paid media to stick up for this swing-state Democrats?
Klobuchar: I think it’s way too early to tell that, Chuck. We’ve got a whole election season in front of us, and my evidence is that we just took back the Virginia legislature and statehouse right in the middle of all of this. Because the voters were looking at this. Yes, this is a patriotism check. This is a values check. There are people that don’t even want to watch the President on TV anymore; they have to turn the volume down on the TV. And it is also an economic check. When I went on that “blue walk tour” to places like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and talked to citizens who have maybe voted for him before, they said “enough; he hasn’t come through for us. Our prescription drug costs are skyrocketing. What has he done? He’s just whining on TV all the time.
[Me: good grief; what pablum! Of course there are TDS-afflicted Democrats who despise POTUS. Why wouldn’t they after being deluged with three years of fake news by the likes of … NBC News and Chuck Todd!]
Todd: Any chance you’ll vote for acquittal?
Klobuchar: I don’t see that happening right now, but I am someone that looks at each count and makes the decision. I’ve said this from the beginning that I see this as impeachable conduct.
[Me: another LMAO moment. EVERY member of the Democrats’ Star Wars bar scene is in favor of impeaching the President and has been for the last 2+ years. It doesn’t matter whether they’ve got evidence of impeachable offenses or not. She and the rest of the Democrat senators will NEVER vote to acquit – if it makes it to the Senate.]
Todd (after introducing Sen. John Kennedy, R-LA): You appeared on a show last Sunday, and you walked back a comment that you made there. Can you explain what you misstated and what you wanted to fix?
Kennedy: I walked it back because I was wrong. Chris Wallace was interviewing me, and he asked me a question and I answered it. I thought he had asked me if Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election. He didn’t. He asked me if Ukraine was responsible for hacking the DNC computer which of course is a form of meddling. I went back and looked at the transcript and realized that Chris was right and I was wrong, so I said I was wrong.
Todd: The issue of conflating what Ukraine did and what Russia did has been at the heart of some of the criticism that you have received. Michael Gerson – who is no liberal columnist in the Washington Post and certainly not a fan of President Trump either – said this: “Politicians such as Kennedy must know the truth about Russian aggression. But still they choose to suck up to the president by reflecting his mania and sharing his blind spots. Loyalty to Trump among Republicans is proved by the loosening of all other loyalties – to truth, to honesty and to the national good. By this measure, Kennedy is profoundly loyal to the President.” Simply uttering this conflation on Ukraine and Russia – the inference is you’re doing the President’s dirty work here. Do you accept that criticism?
[Me: give me a break, Chuck. You’re conveying the Democrat narrative again. You quoted one of the most virulently anti-Trump commentators in one of the most virulently anti-Trump legacy media outlets. That quotation was disgraceful in every way. And then Todd conveys the Democrat narrative that Trump and his allies are “conflating Ukraine and Russia.” Also ridiculous, as Senator Kennedy explained beautifully for all the Democrats who watch Meet The Press …]
Kennedy: Well listen; I like Michael Gerson. I haven’t met him, but I know he’s a smart guy, and I read his columns now and then. I disagree with him. I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. I think it’s been well-documented in the Financial Times, in Politico, in The Economist, in the Washington Examiner, even on CBS, that the prime minister of Ukraine, the interior minister, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, the head of the Ukrainian anti-corruption league – all of them on social media and otherwise. They worked with the DNC operative against the President. [Todd tries to interrupt – unlike letting Klobuchar filibuster – but Kennedy continues…] Can I make just one more point, Chuck? In fact, in December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Ukrainian officials had violated Ukrainian law by meddling in our election, and that was reported in the NY Times.
[Me: outstanding points! Todd can’t refute anything – ironically written by his “fellow legacy media journalists.”]
Todd: Were you briefed by the intelligence community …. According to the NY Times a couple of weeks ago, US senators were briefed after Fiona Hill’s testimony, that actually the entire effort to frame Ukraine for the Russian meddling in 2016, that this is an effort of Russian propaganda. That this is a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine. They’re trying to frame Ukraine. You apparently were briefed about this in the US Senate by intelligence officials. Are you at all concerned you’re doing Russian intelligence work here?
[Me: Todd repeats another Democrat/coup narrative here. The Democrats want Americans to believe that anyone who suggests that Ukraine meddled in 2016 is merely doing Russia’s dirty work. That’s a pretty weak argument, but it’s all they’ve got since there is ample evidence of that Ukrainian meddling for real in the legacy media Kennedy cited.]
Kennedy: I was not briefed. Doctor Hill is entitled to her opinion, but when The Economist ….
Todd (interruption again): When does opinion become fact? Does 17 intelligence services saying it, does every Western intelligence ally saying Russia did this … I’m just sort of confused. At what point is this no longer an opinion for you?
[Me: Todd got very agitated and tried to insert another favorite Democrat lie – that “17 US intelligence agencies concluded that it was the Russians who meddled in 2016.” The fact is, only three agencies made that conclusion (CIA, FBI, DNI) – the same three headed up by Brennan, Comey, and Clapper! And as for “every Western intelligence agency”? Please. We’re just beginning to find out about how Brennan coerced the FVEY intelligence agencies (and others?) to participate in Spygate/OCONUS Lures sting operations targeted on Trump campaign personnel in 2016.]
Kennedy: I don’t think it’s an opinion; I think it’s a fact. I believe the reporting by the Politico magazine, and by the Economist… [Todd keeps interrupting!] … I believe the reporting by the Financial Times; I believe the reporting by the Washington Examiner. You should read the articles, Chuck; they’re very well documented, and I believe that Ukrainian district court in December of 2018 slapped down several Ukrainian officials for meddling in our elections – a violation of Ukrainian law. Now, I didn’t report those facts. Reputable journalists reported those facts. Does that mean that Ukrainian leaders were more aggressive than Russia? No, Russia was very aggressive, and they’re much more sophisticated. But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton. …..
[Me: I love it! Particularly the last bit. The dirty little secret is that the Clintons helped install Poroshenko in 2014, and he was merely paying them back by helping Hillary during the 2016 election. That’s definitely a topic that NBC will never thoroughly investigate!]
Todd (interrupting again, emotionally): You now are saying that a Ukrainian president actively worked for the Democrat nominee for president. I mean, c’mon! You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is his man, Vladimir Putin. This is what he said in November: “Thank God nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in US elections. Now they’re accusing Ukraine. Well, let them sort this out among themselves.” (Smiling) You just accused the former president of Ukraine … you’ve done exactly what the Russian operation is trying to get American politicians to do. (smugly) Are you at all concerned that you’ve been duped?
[Me: Todd knows that Senator Kennedy struck a real nerve here, and Todd had to try to laugh it off as a “conspiracy theory.”]
Kennedy: (emphatically shaking his head) No! Because just read the articles. Do you believe The Economist Magazine is a reputable journal – it’s been around since about 1843 ….
Todd (interrupting again and talking over Kennedy): Do you think there’s a difference in another country [Ukraine] in criticizing a presidential candidate [Trump] who essentially endorsed another country’s [Russia] invasion and annexation of another part of their country [Ukraine] as equivalent to what Russia did to the DNC?
[Me: Todd is really a Democrat operative masquerading as a “journalist,” and this particular comment exposes that fact. Todd said NOTHING about Obama’s silence when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea in 2014 and has the unmitigated gall to repeat the Democrat lie that Trump supposedly endorsed that annexation during the campaign? He also neglected to point out that Obama refused to give Ukraine lethal military aid while President Trump made that happen.]
Kennedy: Well, let me put it this way, Chuck. Let’s suppose – I don’t believe it – but let’s suppose you’re right and I’m wrong. Then what harm would it do to allow the President of the United States, who has a demonstrated record fighting foreign corruption, to introduce evidence?
Todd: Why doesn’t he? He’s been provided every opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence on any of this, and they have chosen not to.
Kennedy: No, he hasn’t! No, he hasn’t! Rounds One and Two by Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff are as rigged as a carnival ring toss, and we both know that. If I were a prosecutor – and I were prosecuting you for a felony – and I went to a federal judged, and I said, “Judge, we both know Chuck’s guilty, so let me call witnesses, give me an order that he can’t call any witnesses, he can’t cross-examine my witnesses, he can’t offer any rebuttal evidence, his lawyer can’t even be there.” You know what that federal judge would do? He’d either put me in handcuffs, or he’d put me in a straight-jacket. And that’s what’s happened here.
[Me: another great reply by the senator! Americans understand due process and fairness, and they’ve seen none of that in the Democrats’ impeachment farce so far. And Todd knows it by shifting the topic.]
Todd: Senator, this White House has not cooperated on any oversight at all. Have they not brought some of this on themselves?
[Me: he was kidding, right? This has been a Democrat-concocted hoax from the very beginning, as the hearings demonstrated to any objective observer.]
Kennedy: Have they allowed the President to call his own witnesses? No! Have they allowed him to have his lawyer present? No! Have they allowed him to offer rebuttal evidence? No! Have they allowed him to cross-examine the witnesses that were hand-picked by Speaker Pelosi? No! Now whether you like the President or you don’t, we both I know agree with due process. Nobody is above the law, Chuck, but nobody is beneath the law, and the Bill of Rights is not an ala carte menu. It’s not.
<End of the interview>
That’s all I could tolerate watching and transcribing, folks, but it was enough. Meet The Press – and NBC – have definitely gone downhill since the death of Tim Russert. Chuck Todd is nothing but a Democrat hack repeating Democrat lies/narratives while asking softball questions of Democrats and allowing them to filibuster at will and then rudely interrupting Republicans when the answers aren’t “convenient.” Thank God for Senator Kennedy! His down-home demeanor and clear thinking about the Democrats’ impeachment farce may have even influenced a Democrat viewer or two. I can’t imagine any real Trump supporters watching that show unless – like me – they did just to get a sense of what the Democrat narratives of the moment are!