Rep. Green Tells MSNBC That The “Genesis” For Trump’s Impeachment Began Before He Was Elected

Rep. Al Green (D, Tex.) has remained the most quoted Democratic member . . . . by Republicans. Green has given Republicans quotable gems to show a long-standing and unending effort to impeach Trump from his very first day in office. His most popular GOP talking point is “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.” However, Green has also said recently that the House may continue to impeach Trump and has called for an array of clearly illegitimate articles of impeachment. Now, Green has given Republicans a quote to reinforce its narrative by declaring that the “genesis” of the impeachment began before Donald Trump was even elected. That is likely to be added to the top Green quotes for the upcoming Senate trial.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes seemed to be setting up Green to walk back his prior controversial comments and defuse some of his quotes being used by Republicans. He stated:

“Political expediency and insincerity — those are two charges that have been leveled against Democrats during this entire affair, particularly since September when the formal impeachment inquiry started, and you play a starring role in those charges. The argument goes like this of House Republicans and Trump and his allies: the Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump from day one, they cast about looking for a set of facts that they could plausibly use to do it, and all of it was pretextual and reverse-engineered to get to this point, and Exhibit One: Congressman Al Green, who [has] been calling for the man’s impeachment for two years now. What’s your response to that charge?”

It was the ultimate softball question that actually supplied the Democratic talking point in the question for the obvious answer. The only thing Hayes did not do is hold up a sign saying “Just repeat what I said.” Green proceeded however to double down.

“Well, the genesis of impeachment, to be very candid with you, was when the president was running for office and he had members of his own party to talk about his unfitness to hold office. . . So the president didn’t have the luxury of persons from his party having been on his side as it were throughout this entire ordeal.”

The result is that a question overtly designed to get Green to walk back on claims that he wanted to impeach from the first day of Trump’s Administration led to a new answer saying that it actually began before he was elected.

Here is the transcript: Hayes/Green interview

123 thoughts on “Rep. Green Tells MSNBC That The “Genesis” For Trump’s Impeachment Began Before He Was Elected”

  1. Jonathan: No doubt, Rep. Al Green has been a vocal critic of Trump since day one. He singled out Trump’s “shithole” comments because it revealed the President is a racist who believes that people of color should not be permitted to immigrate to the US. For this and other reasons Rep. Green thought Trump was unfit for office. Green’s early comments were, in fact, a forecast of worse things to come. Trump has turned out to be one of most corrupt presidents since Richard Nixon. In his 7/25/19 call to the Ukrainian president Trump tried to extort Kelensky into digging up political dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Trump held up that aid in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. Then, when this scheme was revealed by the “whistleblower” Trump attacked him as a “spy” and this past weekend revealed his name in violation of federal law. Rep, Green supported the two articles of impeachment but did not originate them. They were the product of extensive investigation by the two relevant House Committees. Now, Speaker Pelosi is holding up forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate because of concerns that Mitch McConnell is not interested in a fair and impartial trial in the Senate. McConnell says he is “coordinating” Trump’s defense with the WH and will call no witnesses. He wants a quick trial that will absolve Trump. Recent revelations indicate that in early August Mike Esper, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton met with the President to try to convince him to release the military aid to Ukraine. Trump refused. No doubt McConnell doesn’t want these three or others to testify in a Senate trial because they would incriminate Trump. In the Chris Hayes interview with Rep. Green you posted the Representative indicates “…it is imperative that we try as best we can to get a fair trial. A fair trial necessitates witnesses and the production of evidence, documents, if you will. A fake trial allows the Senate to simply convene, have a few perfunctory procedures, and vote to dismiss”. Conveniently, you did not quote this portion of the Hayes interview. Rep. Green’s comments are echoed by most Members of the House and Senate Democrats. As a “constitutional expert” you should be calling on McConnell and Chief Justice Roberts to conduct a fair and impartial trial in the Senate as required by the Constitution. Instead, you seem to telling Senate Republicans to dredge up Rep. Green’s early criticism of Trump as “proof” that Democrats have been out to get the President from the very beginning and the impeachment inquiry was simply a “witch hunt”. That’s a disservice to Rep. Green and reveals you are really just a political hack not an impartial constitutional scholar!

    1. a textual analysis reveals that the post by user name Dennis Mcintyre is receiving copy from the same source as “Natacha” … Or perhaps the very same author. …. I wouldnt know, just speculating, of course!

    2. Wow! That’s an awesome summary of most of the unsubstantiated allegations leveled against President Trump.

      Instead, you seem to telling Senate Republicans to dredge up Rep. Green’s early criticism of Trump as “proof” that Democrats have been out to get the President from the very beginning and the impeachment inquiry was simply a “witch hunt”.

      Yeah, that political hack JT, always resorting to using Democrats own words as supporting evidence for his conclusions. JT is woefully out of step with his own party. Doesn’t he understand that if he claims to be a Democrat, he’s required to submit to the party’s group think feeling of wrongdoing? His old timey insistence that actual evidence should be required to impeach and not feelings, is so out of whack with where the Democrat party has moved, that he is now considered a pariah of the left.

    3. Do you even listen to yourself? His “shithole” comments mean he’s a racist? He opposes the legal immigration of “people of color?” What disingenuous oral feces! You can’t get away with your neurotic ranting here, sir. Take it to MSNBC and come back when you have a well-reasoned analysis.

  2. Turley once again offers more evidence that Leftist are just whining spoiled brats throwing a temper tantrum.

    1. Thank you for the notice that you take no notice of anonymous comments.😏

  3. Cindy Bragg, I cannot read your latest reply to a replay to … due to the limitations of this mobile device. If you expect me to read it, start over from the top.

          1. Anonymous – I don’t know the last time Benson wrote for a peer reviewed journal and was accepted for publication.

    1. Everyone must comport to David Benson’s inabilities and limitations. I have another suggestion: how about he instead use some of that vast computer science knowledge he professes to command and find a bigger monitor screen or resolution. But then again if he won’t reply due to his small screen, well I suppose that’s a preferable outcome for everyone else.

        1. The only thing you excel at David is being the self-actualized example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  4. That the economy is doing well is entirely due to the actions of the Federal Reserve.

    1. That’s a very simplistic explanation, that the only atom responsible for the growth of an economy is a quasi-governmental agency. A logical fallacy just be the structure of the statement and certainly not applicable to the real question. Not all explanations are derived from a single causation.

        1. There is a often a very big difference between reputable economists and competent economists.
          You might want to try parroting the competent ones for a change of pace.

          1. nobody with a bachelor’s degree in english would responsible make such a wild statement of causation let alone economics. the most proposterous remark ever

            damn sure no Marxists would say it. Benson has completely discounted the efforts not only of management but also the workers! yes, completely discounted: the word he used was “entirely” thanks to the Fed.


            Benson, just apologize and don’t feel to bad. Temper your remarks, I welcome your further participation, after a proper act of contrition!

        2. Benson,

          you say you’re quoting or paraphrasing reputable economists? liar!

          find me ONE economist who ever used the world “entirely” or “wholly” or “100%” or any precise equivalent.

          I’ll check back later.

    2. “That the economy is doing well is entirely due to the actions of the Federal Reserve”


      “entirely due” to the bank for bankers–

      the borrowers, the workers, the management have NOTHING to do with it?

      because Benson says the Fed is ENTIRELY responsible. Such a wide assertion of cause is preposterous and you could not find a single economist anywhere who would say “entirely”


    3. boy this whopper is a classic. wow.

      here Benson. listen to the Fed on the topic. THEY say they can only “smooth the bumps.”

      Not even the greenest most ardent fed-wonk emptying wastebaskets there would say “entirely” responsible

      but i guess a computer geek would imagine such a thing. proofread your own remarks at least once beforee posting….. seriously, try and think of English as a programming language. garbage in, garbage out!

  5. Oh dear, somehow older history, i.e., President J. Carter, is invoked. He was persuaded by David Rockefeller to let the Shaw of Iran into the USA; a mistake. See the article in a fairly recent issue of The Nation.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I know you taught computers at a 5th rate ag school, but even you should know it is Shah of Iran, not Shaw of Iran.

      1. First rate Ag School, measured by expenditures from the federal Ags. As for the spelling, this device has a mind of its own.

        Live with it.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – change it from auto correct to suggestion.

    2. Carter also urged the Shah to step aside, another mistake. There was debate within the Carter Administration about whether to continue supporting the Shah, to stay neutral in a potential civil war within Iran, or to pull the rug out from under the Shah.
      A reliable despotic ally is a better alternative to a despotic enemy like Khomenei and Co.

  6. Now you know why the Greeks created democracy with a restricted vote and why the Romans perpetuated democracy with a restricted vote. The record will show that the American Founders generally restricted the vote in their republic to: Male, European, Age 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. That was extant until Lincoln compelled changes by force and dictatorship

    Which is the organization without fundamental principles, requirements and criteria? Even the Mafia has “criteria,” shall we say? It is rational, nay imperative, to require voters in a free nation to be adult, of and loyal to the nation, homogeneous, capable, ambitious, independent, successful and vested.

    If parasites vote, the nation will accede to the demands of those parasites and viability and freedom will be eliminated.

  7. The genesis of Trump’s impeachment was Democrats refusing to accept the results of the election.

    1. Anonymous……..Mr. Trump meets all constitutional requirements for the office of the U.S. Presidency.
      He didn’t run for preacher, he ran for president. When you become an adult, perhaps you’ll understand.

      1. Nonetheless, he is intellectually, mentally, ethically and morally unfit for the office of the President of the United States of America.

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, Cindy is right. If you had any brains you would be at Udub.

                  1. Cindy Bragg – thanks for lying on my behalf. 😉 Happy New Year to you and your hubby

                1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – are we reduced to ad hominems now?

      2. “When you become an adult, perhaps you’ll understand.”

        Cindy, you hit the nail on the head. Some of the individuals on the blog ceased maturing at an early age.

    2. Morally unfit for office? He kept a promise his predecessors broke and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He didn’t pander to terrorists.

      He lowered taxes and his policies led to the lowest black unemployment in history. That led to more minorities off food stamps and living better.

      Dennis Prager pointed out the morality of many of his actions. That’s what you vote for. The Democrat platform would impoverish people. That’s immoral.

      He has repeatedly gotten divorced and has been unfaithful to his wives in the past. Is it impossible for someone with flaws to make ethical decisions in leadership? JFK was one of the worst philanderer to ever inhabit the White House. He chained women while in office. One of his mistresses sang a sexy Happy Birtgday song in a sheer dress on national television. And yet, it does not appear to be in question that he could make ethical decisions. The Kennefy Airlifts, merit based, were one of those.

      Yet, there are those who cannot conceive that a Republican could have the same standard.

      There are generals throughout history who were brilliant strategists and fierce warriors. They could plan my castle onslaught any day. But many of those were intemperate, philandering, angry, or alcoholics. Many had a great deal of problems in their private lives, but their leadership was not in question.

      Why is Trump’s? Because he’s Republican.

      1. Karen S — His smoke screen has fooled you.

        Taxes? Benefits the rich, not the poor.

        Food stamps? More hungry kids now.

        Foreign policy? Inconsistent and incoherent.

        You have been completely bamboozled, I fear.

        1. David:

          Since unemployment is down, then his policies literally did not just benefit the poor. Accept facts. I’ve already shown you the NYT article that read something along the lines of, face it, you probably got a tax break.

          You claim there are more hungry kids now, but provide no evidence. As I linked to you in an earlier post, the Trump Administration’s proposed changes to Welfare were along the work requirement, and did NOT impact anyone with dependents, i.e.children. So, again, a misstatement.

          For someone whom you claim to be totally incompetent and morally reprehensible, he’s run a booming economy, record breaking gains on the stock market, improving most of our 401Ks and IRAs. I agreed with his judicial appointments to SCOTUS. I don’t know much about the other federal judge appointments. He moved the embassy without fearing terrorists’ reactions. I agree with most of his policies.

          I notice that you did not address my comment that there have been many generals who were great leaders and fighters, but had troubled personal lives. Trump does have some flaws, including his multiple divorces and silly Twitter arguments. It should also be obvious that none of that has any bearing on what kind of leader he could be.

          Troubled actors can make great movies. Many attorneys have wrecked home lives and health due to the strain of the job and long hours. Yet they slay in court. Many CEOs are multiple divorced. You vote for someone’s policies and leadership. That does not in any way mean you endorse their flaws. It means their overall positives outweigh those of the opposing side.

      2. Jimmy Carter is a kind man who would be described as ethical. I never heard anything about marital problems.

        But he was not a good leader. His handling of the Iran hostage crisis was dangerous and inept.

        So, the question for Trump voters is, can a man with personal flaws be a good leader, and appoint good judges. Yes, he can.

        He has enacted policies that made America more prosperous.

        Terrorists of Hezbolla are challenging him. We will have to see how this plays out. It is obvious that support for terrorists and antisemitic sentiment still runs strong in Iraq.

        No matter how many times we go to war, Middle Eastern culture will not be Western culture.

  8. He’s the gift that keeps on giving. Remember Pelosi’s statement in an interview when she was asked about the speed which they impeached him: “What do you mean fast? It’s taken 22 months.” And the whistle blower’s tweet the day he was inaugurated: ‘The impeachment begins.’ These things are recorded and documented. They are not conspiracy theories as dems would claim.

  9. Green should be turning Red over the 34% of Blacks who support Trump and growing, making the Left turn Blue

      1. So what you are saying is that you do not believe a Youtube personality black American. Because he is Black
        If he stated Trump supporters were racist you would have run with iy

        What you are saying is that you do not believe 34% of black Americans would support Trump

        Yet two polls state otherwise and another is not far behind

        Fight the hate. Fight Racism


        President Trump received only 8% of the black vote in 2016, but two major pollsters find he now has the support of about 34% of black likely voters.

        An Emerson poll had black support for Trump at 34.5% and a Rasmussen poll at 34%.

        Remarkably, the same Emerson poll taken in October showed approval for Trump’s presidency among blacks at 17.8%.

        The most recent Emerson poll of 1,092 registered voters was conducted Nov. 17–20.

        The poll also showed significant rise in approval among Hispanic voters, from 26.2% in October to 38.2% in November.

        Overall, the Emerson poll showed Trump’s approval at 48.3%, up from 43.2% from October.

        An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll in mid-November showed Trump had 33% approval among non-white adults.

  10. Rachel Maddow lied?


    The Dangers of Elite Groupthink

    The Washington Post recently published a surprising indictment of MSNBC host, Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow.

    Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote that Maddow deliberately misled her audience by claiming the now-discredited Steele dossier was largely verifiable — even at a time when there was plenty of evidence that it was mostly bogus.

    At the very time Maddow was reassuring viewers that Christopher Steele was believable, populist talk radio and the much-criticized Fox News Channel were insisting that most of Steele’s allegations simply could not be true. Maddow was wrong. Her less degreed critics proved to be right.

    In 2018, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and the committee’s then-ranking minority member, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), each issued contrasting reports of the committee’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign team and the misbehavior of federal agencies.

    Schiff’s memo was widely praised by the media. Nunes’ report was condemned as rank and partisan.

    Many in the media went further. They contrasted Harvard Law graduate Schiff with rural central Californian Nunes to help explain why the clever Schiff got to the bottom of collusion and the “former dairy farmer” Nunes was “way over his head” and had “no idea what’s going on.”

    Recently, the nonpartisan inspector general of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, found widespread wrongdoing at the DOJ and FBI. He confirmed the key findings in the Nunes memo about the Steele dossier and its pernicious role in the FISA application seeking a warrant against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

    In contrast, much of what the once-praised Schiff had claimed to be true was proven wrong by Horowitz — from Schiff’s insistence that the FBI verified the Steele dossier to his assertion that the Department of Justice did not rely chiefly on the dossier for its warrant application.

    When special counsel Robert Mueller formed an investigatory team, he stocked it with young, progressive Washington insiders, many with blue-chip degrees and resumes.

    The media swooned. Washington journalists became giddy over the prospect of a “dream team” of such “all-stars” who would demolish the supposedly far less impressively credentialed Trump legal team.

    We were assured by a snobbish Vox that “Special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team is full of pros. Trump’s team makes typos.”

    Yet after 22 months and $32 million worth of investigation, Mueller’s team found no Russian collusion and no evidence of actionable Trump obstruction during the investigation of that non-crime. All the constant media reports that “bombshell” Mueller team disclosures were imminent and that the “walls are closing in” on Trump proved false.

    Mueller himself testified before Congress, only to appear befuddled and almost clueless at times about his own investigation. Many of his supposedly brightest all-stars, such as Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith, had to leave his dream team due to unethical behavior.

    In contrast, Trump’s widely derided chief lawyers — 69-year-old Ty Cobb, 78-year-old John Dowd, and 63-year-old radio and TV host Jay Sekulow — stayed out of the headlines. They advised Trump to cooperate with the Mueller team and systematically offered evidence and analyses to prove that Trump did not collude with the Russians to warp the 2016 election. In the end, Mueller’s “hunter-killer team” was forced to agree.

    When the supposed clueless Trump was elected, a number of elites pronounced his economic plans to be absurd. We were told that Trump was bound to destroy the U.S. economy.

    Former Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman insisted that Trump would crash the stock market. He even suggested that stocks might never recover.

    Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said Trump would bring on a recession within a year and a half.

    The former head of the National Economic Council, Steven Rattner, predicted a market crash of “historic proportions.”

    In contrast, many of Trump’s economic advisers during his campaign and administration, including outsider Peter Navarro, pundit Steven Moore, former TV host Larry Kudlow and octogenarian Wilbur Ross, were caricatured.

    Yet three years later, in terms of the stock market, unemployment, energy production and workers’ wages, the economy has been doing superbly.

    The point of these sharp contrasts is not that an Ivy League degree or a Washington reputation is of little value, or that prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing, or even that supposed experts are always unethical and silly.

    Instead, one lesson is that conventional wisdom and groupthink tend to mislead, especially in the age of online echo chambers and often sheltered and blinkered elite lives.

    We forget that knowledge can be found at all ages, and in all places. And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or pedigrees

  11. Further proof that the U.S. no longer has the best politicians money can buy–we should demand a refund.

Comments are closed.