Another Thing About Those Devin Nunes Comments


Rachel Maddow last night played audio from Devin Nunes’ appearance at a fundraiser for Kathy McMorris Rodgers. Rodgers, the fourth ranking member in the Republican House caucus, is in a tough battle to retain her seat.

Nunes, with Rodgers seemingly on board, explained how the Rosenstein impeachment isn’t dead, it’s just on hold until the Senate confirms Kavanaugh. If the House impeached Rosenstein, you see, the Senate would have to table all other business during the Rosenstein’s trial.

Yes, that’s disturbing. Good on Rachel for reporting it.

But the other disturbing part of the story is the role Nunes was playing at the event.

Many readers here think of Nunes as nothing but a corrupt stooge for Trump.

Yet there he was, playing the headliner role at a fundraiser for the fourth ranking Republican in the House.

Were it an event to rally the folks like those we’ve seen at recent Trump rallies (my fave is the woman in the sleeveless flannel shirt flipping the bird at the camera), this would not be surprising. You’d expect Nunes to be popular with that crowd.

But nobody from that crowd was present at the Rodgers fundraiser, a high dollar event at which the media was barred. So, these were the Republican check writers, on Rodgers home turf, who ponied up to be in front of Nunes. Think about that. The fourth ranking Republican flew Nunes out to her district in Spokane to get his help. She needed him.

Want to understand this better? Check out Fox News. That’s driving Nunes’ stardom. And his power.

The Republican Party at this point is less a political party than it is a regime that’s grabbed power. To be sure, Nunes’ power inside the regime is derived from Trump and others. But he quite clearly has more power than Rodgers, despite his much lower ranking in the Republican caucus.

In his remarks, Nunes explained how if the Republicans don’t retain control of the House “all of this goes away.” That’s not exactly true, but the obverse sure is: If Republicans do retain control of the House, the regime stays.

And that we can’t let happen.


  1. “Thank You” to Michael and Bob!
    It does seem that the U.S. House could move pretty quickly if its leadership wanted to.
    I still don’t know if the Senate would be required to drop everything and act on an impeachment, but if I find out I’ll post the answer.
    It also has occurred to me that the “We don’t want to inhibit the Senate” explanation was a prepared dodge rather than a real statement. We (including Rachael) need to be careful about conjuring up conspiracies when there are easier explanations.

  2. Impeachment is pretty much the equivalent of an indictment. The House doesn’t have to prove anything, just make a prima facie case and get 51% to sign off on it. Thus, an impeachment takes very little time in the House.

  3. Where can I find some confirmation of the following?
    ” If the House impeached Rosenstein, you see, the Senate would have to table all other business during the Rosenstein’s trial.”
    Also—wouldn’t it take quite awhile for the House to actually complete an impeachment?

    • You’d have to ask Devin Nunes that, or check the Senate rules. My recollection, though, is that once the House impeached Clinton, the Senate turned to it and did not conduct other business during the trial.

      Would it take the House awhile to complete an impeachment? You’d think so, but this House moves quickly when it wants to. It passed once in a generation tax legislation, ordinarily a year-long process, in a couple weeks. It’s not like they’re acting conscientiously.

      But Rachel’s point was not whether Nunes was correct or not about Senate and House procedure, it was what he and his Republican cronies were thinking strategically and what he was saying about their collective intent.

Comments are closed.