Maddow to Colbert: Republicans Should Impeach 'to Be on the Right Side of History'

Listen to the Article!

In what is not exactly shocking news, the leftist dynamic duo of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and CBS’s Stephen Colbert had a field day being in the company of one another on Tuesday’s The Late Show. So much so, that Colbert dedicated half of his hour time slot to hosting Maddow for essentially what was a Trump-bashing gossip session.

It goes without saying, the volume of pent up anger the two liberal blowhards have for President Trump is unfathomable, therefore, the topic of conversation was guaranteed to center around the man they love to hate. Colbert initiated the interview by not so subtly stroking Maddow’s ego:

 

Well, as I've said to you many times before, that I think you are America's premiere explainer. Something complicated going on in the day, you come out- and you-- as I've said before-- you lay the story out like parts on a lawn and then you put it together and say, "This is how the engine works." Are you at all frustrated that the present scandal is so damn simple? Let me lay out the parts: Trump called Ukraine. And I'm done.

The ever-so-wise Maddow then made the unequivocal pronouncement that President Trump’s impeachment is imminent:

Exactly, you can't even sleuth your way through it, too. Because in order to find out that Trump called Ukraine, what we had to do was ask Trump, "Did you call Ukraine?" And he said, "Yes, here's the evidence." So, there wasn't even like a whodunit? How can we prove it? It's over. I mean-- there is stuff to explain like why did this happen in Ukraine? And why did he think he could get that? And what's going to happen to Ukraine?...But in terms of who done it, he done it, and now he's going to be impeached for it.

What exactly the President has “done” is still subject to explanation on the part of Maddow. But rather than bog down the interview with questions such as that, Colbert proceeded to ask his fellow television host about matters concerning constitutional law:

Or what even happens with the trial in the Senate? Cause Mitch McConnell says the Senate rules are clear, we'd have to actually have the trial in the Senate. But what that can be, can be almost anything because it's not written down what that trial should be. Every time it's happened, they've kind of made it up as they went along.

Maddow then invoked the favorite villain of the left, Mitch McConnell, in order to harangue Republicans in the Senate about patriotism and the importance of being on the “right side of history”:

Yes, and Mitch McConnell has been perfectly willing to say, "Senate? What senate?" Whenever there is something he doesn't want them to engage with. I mean, literally, a Supreme Court Justice died and there was a vacancy, and Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate and he just pretended he wasn't. Until there was a Republican President so that we couldn't get a new Supreme Court Justice… In this case, he says, "Yeah, we're going to have a trial." Now we don't know what that trial might be but, I do think that this behavior by the President is so simple and it's so indefensible-- you can't go to another country and ask them for help against your likely opponent in the next election. You just can't. And it may be that Republicans decide either to save their own skins or because of their conscience or their patriotism that they want to be on the right side of history on this. I don't think they're deciding now. I think they'll decide as it plays out.

For Maddow to be lecturing Republicans on patriotism is rich, considering she makes a livelihood off of pillorying the President. With no sense of irony, she continued to do just that as Colbert questioned the lack of coverage she gives to clips of the President himself: "...you rarely play the President's statements or even talk about him specifically. You talk about the news surrounding the Administration. You don't actually give him a lot of screen time. Why is that?"

Maddow replied: "Life is short. You might -- you might at any time fall down and be on crutches for a whole summer. Would you have wanted to spend that summer watching clips of the President that you then have to explain there after? That wasn't really true, what I think he was implying was a conspiracy theory that's not true..."

The hypocrisy was glaring when Maddow cited the President’s “inaccurate statements” to justify her refusal to play his words:

I mean, I do think that there is something new about this President. All Presidents have told a lie here and there. All Presidents hate the press. All Presidents try to spin you. That's always happened. But with this President he very rarely says anything that is an accurate, factual conveyance of information. So you can't ever responsibly play his statements without, you know, putting an asterisk on them explaining it and rebutting him. That's just exhausting. I'd rather talk about the news than talk about him.

Colbert added: “The actual fact checking is daunting.” With Maddow comporting: “Yeah. So I just don't spend that much time -- I watch what he does intently, but I don't pay any attention to what he says.”

Notice that whatever opinion the liberal media decide is the correct one always seems to become "the right side of history."

Help fight back against the media's impeachment crusade.

Transcript below. Click "expand" to read more. 

The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

10/1/19

11:55:06 PM

STEPHEN COLBERT: Well, as I've said to you many times before, that I think you are America's premiere explainer. Something complicated going on in the day, you come out- and you-- as I've said before-- you lay the story out like parts on a lawn and then you put it together and say, "This is how the engine works." Are you at all frustrated that the present scandal is so damn simple? Let me lay out the parts: Trump called Ukraine. And I'm done.

RACHEL MADDOW: Exactly, you can't even sleuth your way through it, too. Because in order to find out that trump called Ukraine, what we had to do was ask Trump, "Did you calm Ukraine?" And he said, "Yes, here's the evidence." So, there wasn't even like a whodunit? How can we prove it? It's over. I mean-- there is stuff to explain like why did this happen in Ukraine? And why did he think he could get that? And what's going to happen to Ukraine? There are a lot of other contextual stuff I can make log segments about. But in terms of who done it, he done it, and now he's going to be Impeached for it.

(....)

COLBERT: Or what even happens with the trial in the Senate? Cause Mitch McConnell says the Senate rules are clear, we'd have to actually have the trial in the Senate. But what that can be, can be almost anything because it's not written down what that trial should be. Every time it's happened, they've kind of made it up as they went along.

MADDOW: Yes, and Mitch McConnell has been perfectly willing to say, "Senate? What senate?" Whenever there is something he doesn't want them to engage with. I mean, literally, a Supreme Court Justice died and there was a vacancy, and Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate and he just pretended he wasn't. Until there was a Republican President so that we couldn't get a new Supreme Court Justice. He's perfectly happy to just not act if need be. In this case, he says, "Yeah, we're going to have a trial." Now we don't know what that trial might be but, I do think that this behavior by the President is so simple and it's so indefensible-- you can't go to another country and ask them for help against your likely opponent in the next election. You just can't. And it may be that Republicans decide either to save their own skins or because of their conscience or their patriotism that they want to be on the right side of history on this. I don't think they're deciding now. I think they'll decide as it plays out.

(....)

COLBERT: I-- I understand that-- and I didn't notice this before, but when it was pointed out to me by one of my producers, it makes sense. That you rarely play the President's statements or even talk about him specifically. You talk about the news surrounding the Administration. You don't actually give him a lot of screen time. Why is that?

MADDOW: Life is short. You might-- you might at any time fall down and be on crutches for a whole summer. Would you have wanted to spend that summer watching clips of the President that you then have to explain there after? That wasn't really true, what I think he was implying was a conspiracy theory that's not true-

COLBERT: Is it a Candyman situation where you say his name three times and he appears behind you in the mirror?

MADDOW: I mean, I do think that there is something new about this President. All Presidents have told a lie here and there. All Presidents hate the press. All Presidents try to spin you. That's always happened. But with this President he very rarely says anything that is an accurate, factual conveyance of information. So you can't ever responsibly play his statements without, you know, putting an asterisk on them explaining it and rebutting him. That's just exhausting. I'd rather talk about the news than talk about him.

COLBERT: The actual fact checking is daunting.

MADDOW: Yeah. So I just don't spend that much time-- I watch what he does intently, but I don't pay any attention to what he says.

NB Daily Trump Impeachment Late Show Stephen Colbert Rachel Maddow
Aiden Jackson's picture


Sponsored Links