Two Articles of Impeachment – for Impeaching the Execrable Chuck Todd!

Meet the (de)Press(ed) host Chuck Todd’s latest assist to the Democrat Party on the impeachment front didn’t move the needle with any undecided Americans the way he thought it would be moved. The contrast in his style and demeanor in interviewing Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and then Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) revealed his continuing overt political bias in favor of Democrats. It was a truly despicable performance, but to be expected from a guy who worked on far-left Iowa Democrat Sen. Tom Harkins’ presidential campaign in 1992. Todd hasn’t changed his political spots one iota since then. It’s clear that Todd supports impeachment despite the absence of evidence of anything warranting impeachment. Maybe there was some evidence presented on his show Sunday that someone ELSE besides the President needs to be “impeached.” Let’s take a look.


Sunday’s program was introduced as “the Road to Impeachment” – as if that’s the only important political story that is ongoing (e.g., the DoJ OIG’s FISA abuse report, continuing riots in Hong Kong and Iran, Joe Biden’s dementia on the campaign trail, etc.) Here are a few excerpts of the Nadler and Cruz interviews for comparison purposes:

Todd opened with a 2-minute Democrat campaign commercial, breathlessly concluding that Nancy Pelosi “made history” this week by announcing that Jerry Nadler has the go-ahead to draft articles of impeachment, and then gleefully stating that Donald Trump will almost certainly be the third president in US history to be impeached (a foregone conclusion in his fevered mind). Considering that Todd has been aiding and abetting the Democrat impeachment push for nearly three years now, that shouldn’t be a surprise.

He then ruminated about how many articles of impeachment would be drawn up and what a Senate trial would look like. He slipped in a slam at Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for not holding hearings for Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick for the US Supreme Court in 2016. Todd forgot to mention that one of his heroes, former Democrat majority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), opened the door for McConnell’s actions to confirm conservative judges by Reid setting precedent with the “nuclear option” in which a simple majority vote was implemented in Senate rules in order to overcome the supermajority requirement to overturn a filibuster.

Todd then worried about how a “deeply divided country” can face (and survive) an impeachment trial, a possible government shutdown, contested primaries, and a “brutal presidential campaign.” Yeah, right. The divisiveness wouldn’t be there if clowns like Todd in the legacy media hadn’t spent three years of flat-out lying about the Russia hoax, including accusing the President of being a Russian agent, while fighting every single policy initiative of the President’s on the basis that he is – in their partisan minds – an “illegitimate” president. The media – and especially partisan hacks like Chuck Todd – are the reason for the exacerbated political divide that exists in America today. They have propagated the Democrats’ impeachment narrative for every newly manufactured reason since Inauguration Day. And now Chuck wrings his hands rhetorically about the very division that he helped to create on behalf of Democrat political objectives.

The Nader Interview

Todd then introduced Nadler and spent a collegial and relaxed few minutes in Q&A. Todd was completely at ease with Nadler; it was like watching two old friends kibitzing over a cup of coffee. He asked nice and easy leading questions of Nadler, e.g., making assumptions that there would be articles written on abuse of power, bribery, etc. From Nadler’s rambling, it’s a done deal that the Democrats will produce articles of impeachment; exactly how many and on what alleged (and poll-tested) offenses remains to be determined. Nadler claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence… that the President put himself above the country, that the President sought foreign assistance in elections, that he sought to cover it up… and he completed defied (sic) participation in the congressional investigation in order to hide his role … and that he sought foreign assistance in the next election.”


[Me: Nadler lies like a rug. I watched ALL of the Democrats’ star chamber hearings. They presented NO direct evidence of any of those allegations, and, in fact, the transcript of the two presidents’ phone calls and Gordon Sondland’s direct testimony about his phone call with the President completely debunk Nadler’s claims.]

Nevertheless, Nadler talked about abuse of power and “obstruction of Congress” (laughable given that the Executive Branch is a co-equal branch of the government with legal rights!) Nadler squalled about the importance of the “integrity of the next election,” too. What a joke! As if Democrats care a wit about “election integrity” given their continuing actions to undermine and fight the passage of voter ID laws that would restore REAL integrity to US elections!

Nadler was open to the inclusion of elements of the Mueller Report in the articles of impeachment. That’s an indication right there that he knows the “evidence” forthcoming from Schiff’s star chamber hearings is very thin gruel indeed. And the obstruction traps set by the Deep State during the first 20 months of the Trump presidency didn’t catch anything, or else there wouldn’t have been those wishy-washy conclusions on obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report. The Democrats don’t have any evidence that supports impeachment – no crimes committed, no statutes violated, nothing.

The rest of the Nadler interview was non-newsworthy and a rehash of Democrat allegations of the President’s supposed “violations of the Constitution,” that he ”poses a threat to the integrity of the next election,” etc. Todd never interrupted Nadler even once. All of his questions were softballs and sympathetic to the Democrat cause, and he let Nadler finish before asking the next creampuff question. He asked no tough questions of Nadler whatsoever, didn’t challenge him on Nadler’s claim that “70% of Americans support impeachment,” and let slide Nadler’s repeated claim that “there is an abundance of evidence of the President’s guilt.” Proof positive that Todd is a Democrat hack masquerading as a journalist.

My conclusion after watching the Nadler interview

An article of impeachment to remove Chuck Todd as a host for Meet The Press should be drafted immediately for his demonstrated actions (captured on video!) to further the Democrat impeachment narrative. He failed to ask pointed questions and let Nadler’s false allegations slip by without a single one of them being challenged. He’s a propagandist, not a journalist. and needs to face his own form of impeachment.


The Cruz Interview

Let’s contrast the Nadler interview with how he handled his next guest, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Todd began by pointing fingers and his pen at Cruz (who was in Houston during the interview) in an agitated manner while claiming that the President continues to be weak on Russia. For example, he commented that some Republicans in Congress and the President have discussed letting Russia back in the G-7 international inter-government organization before “relinquishing the annexation of Crimea.” [Never mind that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014 during Obama’s watch, and Obama looked the other way because he wanted Russian support for his deal with Iran! And ol’ Chuck was silent about that at the time.] Contrast that ridiculous question aimed at furthering the Democrat narrative that the President is “soft on Russia” with the puffball questions he asked Nadler!

Cruz replied that there are always policy disagreements in an administration, and that various bills that he has sponsored will likely be passed and signed, e.g., one he authored that will help stop the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany (which certainly isn’t “pro-Russian”!) Here is a very powerful quote from Cruz in response to Todd’s question:

Cruz: If you look at the substantive policy that we are implementing, it has been tougher on Russia by orders of magnitude than Barack Obama ever was, and yet the media is playing along with this show trial the Democrats are putting on in the House….

Todd then started a series of interruptions in order to deflect from Cruz’s remarks, all of which were very politically-damaging for Democrats. In fact, Todd played damage control operator for Democrats throughout the rest of the interview. For example, in blatant misdirection, he asked Cruz if he believed “that what the President did with Ukraine somehow was tough on Russia, or didn’t all of this delayed aid play into the hands of Russia.” Cruz literally laughed in Todd’s face in response.

Cruz: By any measure, the President’s policy and this administration’s policy have been tougher on Russia – and actually better for Ukraine – than Obama’s was. The Trump Administration gave lethal military aid to Ukraine – Javelin missiles – to take out Russian tanks. Throughout the Obama Administration, I repeatedly pressed President Obama to give lethal aid to Ukraine. … The Obama Administration sent ‘teddy bears and MREs’ – they wouldn’t actually give weapons. And at the end of the day, Chairman Nadler doesn’t want to talk about any of that – the actual substance.

Cruz then switched topics to talk about impeachment: House Democrats put out a 55-page report – they call it a “scholarly report” – that purports to say you don’t have to prove a crime, you don’t have to prove a law was violated to impeach a president. That’s garbage; what nonsense.

Todd got apoplectic about that in emotionally and emphatically defending Democrats with this response (in contrast to his placid commentary with Nadler): That is exactly why impeachment was written into the Constitution! That’s exactly why the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is in there because they did it before they even wrote our laws. (interrupting Cruz’s response) … and you’re saying exactly the opposite of what is true!

Ted Cruz laughed out loud again before finally being allowed to respond: Chuck, what the Constitution actually says is that you can impeach the president for treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. It specifies those (Todd interrupts again, but Cruz continued) …. Chuck, hold, hold on, …


Todd continued to interrupt and asked Cruz to define “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Todd probably doesn’t know that Cruz taught Supreme Court litigation in university classes and also was the longest-serving solicitor general in Texas history. He knows more about the US Constitution than Todd ever dreamed of knowing.

Cruz’s response: High crimes and misdemeanors was a term of art that the Framers used… and here, it’s striking … in poker, there’s something called a tell … when a player has a really bad hand and they reveal it, it’s a tell. What we saw last night was a tell from the House Democrats. You know, just a few weeks before, their talking point was bribery, bribery, bribery. They’re now admitting they can’t prove a crime, they can’t prove a law was violated, and here’s why. Any president and any administration is justified in investigating corruption, and there was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine.

Todd then interrupted Cruz repeatedly in defending Hunter Biden’s compensation (“it was never confirmed”). Cruz pointed out that an Exxon board member receives roughly $100,000 per year, yet Hunter Biden received $83,000 per month, and Todd was very agitated and stuttering in Biden’s defense. Todd misdirected again by asking a question as to why we should be asking a foreign government to announce an investigation on a US citizen who may have been involved in corruption abroad.

Cruz responded: I believe that any American president – any Justice Department – has the authority to investigate corruption, and in this case, there was serious evidence on the face of that corruption.

Todd couldn’t handle that response, and then misdirected again to protect the Democrat narrative by asking Cruz if he believed that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.

Cruz responded: I do, and I think there is considerable evidence of that.

Todd, with exaggerated flair and raised eyebrows, asked condescendingly whether Cruz really believed that (implying by his body language and syrupy question that that is just a conspiracy theory). Todd then tried to coax some anti-Trump comments out of Cruz by bringing up the President’s attacks on him during the Republican primary campaign in 2015-16. He asked Cruz whether or not it’s possible for President Trump to create a false narrative about somebody for political gain (implying of course that Ukraine meddling in 2016 is a false narrative). Notice the continuing questions assuming the worst about the President without a shred of proof – only a presumption of guilt!


Cruz responded: Except that’s not what happened. The President released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call…

And Todd kept interrupting because he knows that line of answers further destroys the Democrat impeachment narrative.

Cruz continued, dispassionately: Chuck, let me point out a game that the media is playing – a question that you’ve asked a number of people. You’ve said to senators, sort of aghast, “Do you believe that Ukraine and not Russia interfered in the election?” Now that, in a court of law, would be struck as a misleading question. Of course Russia interfered in our election; nobody looking at the evidence disputes that.

After yet another Todd interruption, Cruz continued: On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here’s the game the media is playing. Because Russia interfered, the media pretend nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the election campaign.

Todd loudly interrupts AGAIN to explain the Democrat spin for that op-ed (that the ambassador was merely responding to pro-Russia remarks made by candidate Trump). Sorry, Chuck; that’s still meddling during our election regardless of the reason because that op-ed was in US media during the campaign! Todd came unglued on this topic for a minute or so while providing the Democrat Party line in about as emotional a manner as any partisan would.

Cruz responded, laughing: Chuck, Chuck, I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because (a) they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway, and (b) it’s inconvenient for the narrative.  You know, it’s hysterical that two years ago there was an article after an article after an article in the mainstream media about Ukrainian interference in the elections, but now the Democrats have no evidence of a crime, no evidence of violating the law, and so suddenly Ukraine is treated as – the media clutches their pearls and say, “oh, you can’t say that.” Last week, Chuck, you called Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) basically a stooge for Putin. I wish the media would stop being ridiculous by acting like they work for Adam Schiff.

Todd stuttered to interrupt that last sentence by misdirecting once again to ask the same question he asked Sen. Kennedy last week about whether Cruz got the “intelligence community briefing” that the Russian intelligence services are trying to actively use this Ukraine story to frame Ukraine for the interference in the 2016 election.


Cruz responded: I have been in multiple briefings year after year after year about foreign interference in in our elections. Russia’s tried to interfere in our elections, China’s tried to interfere in our elections, North Korea has tried to interfere in our elections, Ukraine has tried to interfere in our elections. This is not new; 2016 is not the first year they did it, and they’re gonna keep trying. So we need to be strong in dealing with it, but the media needs to actually report facts. This is a kangaroo court in the House. They’re going to impeach not because they have the evidence but because they hate the President and want to undo the election. But it’s gonna go to the Senate, and it’s gonna go nowhere. I think the American people know that it’s a waste of time, and this is Democrats putting on a circus.

Todd wrapped up that interview by claiming that it was always good to “go back and forth” with Sen. Cruz. Yeah, right, Chuck. Ted Cruz handed you your head yet again, and you’re not smart enough to even figure that out. But one thing you did accomplish during that interview was to remind us yet again just how partisan, venal and vain you really are when you interview Republicans. Nothing but interruptions and misdirection when clear points are being made that damage the Democrat narrative. And your emotional responses and exaggerated body language gave your game away.

My conclusion after watching the Cruz interview

Time to draft a second article of impeachment for removing Todd as host for MTP, as he clearly demonstrated not only partisan Democrat political bias at every turn, but disrespectfully interrupted Sen. Cruz at every turn by not letting him finish his answers. Exactly the OPPOSITE approach in how Todd conducted his interview with Nadler.

Chuck Todd is clearly on Maxine Waters’s “impeach 45” bandwagon. If he’d look in the mirror, he’d see someone far more worthy of being “impeached” than President Trump. And Sunday’s show gave us two articles of impeachment toward that end.

The end.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos