Chris Matthews was in rare form last night, and that is NOT a compliment.

[Miles Archer]

He had a House Judiciary member on last night...sorry, did not commit her name to memory. Perhaps someone reading this can share that info, if they were watching.

But last night, he had a segment on the committee's impeachment investigations. And Chris locked himself into a tangent and would not let it go.

The exchange below is not a transcript, but captures what happened to the best of my memory.

And no, I do not regularly watch Matthews. I had MSNBC on last night in the run-up to the debates, it was one of the rare times that I had his show on, and I was doing other things while it played in the background. We all know he interrupts his guests and that sometimes he gets lost in the moment. Last night was one of his worst moments.

MATTHEWS: What's happening with impeachment? How are you going to get away with that?

GUEST: It is not impeachment, it is impeachment investigations, which is a precursor to impeachment.

MATTHEWS: But Nancy Pelosi has said that she's not signing off on that, how are you going to get away with that?

GUEST: These are investigations to determine if there are grounds for impeachment.

MATTHEWS (visibly scowling, clearly disagreeing): But Pelosi said that's not going to happen. How are you going to get away with that? There aren't enough votes in the House for Impeachment.

GUEST: You don't need a full House vote to begin impeachment investigations.

MATTHEWS: But Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that's not going to happen.

GUEST: I disagree with that statement. She has consistently said that the House is working on legislation, oversight, and investigations. We are going to determine if there are grounds for impeachment and we will then bring the case to the American people, and that will determine the next steps.

MATTHEWS But how are you going to get away with impeachment if there are not enough votes?

GUEST: It is not impeachment, it is impeachment investigations.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, I agree with everything you said except calling it impeachment.

(Guest's face clearly falls in exasperation at this point)

End of segment.

[samnsara]

1. i saw that and i kinda cringed but thats why it called Hardball i guess...

[Miles Archer]

2. By the third time the guest clarified, I was losing my mind

He doesn't listen, it's that simple. Or, he listens for the response he expects, and when he doesn't get it, he doubles / triples / quadruples down.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Hardball? More like Hairball.

A lot of yakking, convulsive retching, followed by a repulsive mess to be cleaned up by someone else.

[lagomorph777]

15. Morning Joe was similarly on a RW mission this morning.

Joe and his panel were desperately trying to scare people away from Medicare For All (or All Who Want It). They were constantly repeating "Dems shouldn't take private insurance away from Americans."

I wonder how their numerous private insurance company sponsors feel about the issue?

[Miles Archer]

17. I've stopped watching that one altogether. Sick of Joe. Sick of Mika. Sick of the whole vibe.

I'm down to Maddow, O'Donnell, and Williams.

I know some on DU aren't fond of Williams, and I respect their opinion. But he does NOT have right wing guests, doesn't venture into right wing talking points, and regardless of whatever sins and transgressions he may have committed in the past, I watch his show.

I never watch on the weekends, but I do know that Joy Reid belongs on the list. I just take an MSNBC break on the weekends, no reflection of her or her show.

[kentuck]

3. I thought she blew his mind.

She busted all his bubbles.

[Miles Archer]

18. She DID. He was VISIBLY STUNNED and SPEECHLESS a couple of times.

She clearly had him on the ropes, but he wouldn't let it go, and had to get in that snarky comment at the end.

[brewens]

4. He keeps saying "get away with that". Nice way to phrase it Chris. As if democrats are pulling

something sleazy by even looking at impeachment. If trump can't be investigated with impeachment being the goal, then we should never even have heard of that before, even with Nixon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Exactly what my brain fixated on

Impeachment is a legitimate tool that Congress has to investigate and, if necessary, attempt to remove a President for misconduct. And it's not like it's something that has never been attempted before. Republicans were also never punished at the polls in 2000 for their ham-handed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 (and they didn't even lose at the polls in 1998 either, contrary to popular opinion)

[Cosmocat]

16. In a nutshell why this country if in its current extreme FUCKED position

a GD "LIBERAL" media person negatively framing democrats doing the most basic and fundamental aspect of legislative oversight of the most corrupt, traitorous presidency the country has ever seen.

[Miles Archer]

19. It plays into Trump's rhetoric about the Mueller investigation being a "coup."

It was wrong, just wrong.

[CDerekGo]

5. This sort of exchange

is exactly why I don't watch C. Matthews. If interviewer is only there to ask their questions, never listening to the other person's answers, and if they happen TO LISTEN, and still don't get the answer they're looking for, insert their own answer, this isn't any sort of television worth watching. Guess I could just flip over to Fux Noise and basically have same sort of flippant attitude.

Hardball my ass, maybe get Chris Matthews a functioning pair of hearing aids...

[SharonClark]

13. Well put.

[rurallib]

7. Hard to believe MSNBC doesn't have any better talent the Matthews

to fill an hour every day - a very critical hour.

Matthews must know where the bodies are buried.

That would be such a great spot for Joy Reed

[apcalc]

8. +1

[Miles Archer]

20. He has ALWAYS been this way, it's just gotten chronic

I clearly remembering the shows, watching them as they aired, while he mused over Bush in his jump suit, how women really like a guy like that, then later marveling over his "sunny nobility," and of course wondering if Fred Thompson smelled like cigars and Aqua Velva,

Chris has always been Chris, and he grows worse with age.

[rurallib]

23. quit watching Matthews almost as soon as I first saw him

All I could see was a buttinski who seemed to be more interested in hearing his own voice than actually asking real questions.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

9. But you have to remember that the sound of his own voice gives him wood. Plus

I don't think the "we're all neocons now" guy should be taken seriously.

[Meadowoak]

10. It's time for Chris Matthews to retire!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. I'd like to watch a clip of that. I watch him all the

time. It is obvious he wants us 100% in on formal Impeachment proceedings. No questions. No wordsmithing. Btw Eugene Robinson has a piece today about this subject. So it's not just some of us here.

What seems to be missing is that IF in the end of investigation the committee decides that there's not enough? to move to Articles, they will be in the exact same place as if they just moved to formal Impeachment from the get go. Worries that trump would take a failed Impeachment as exoneration. What do you think he would do if the investigations don't lead to Articles?

[Miles Archer]

21. I imagine he'd lean hard on "WHY did you do this if you KNEW it wouldn't lead to impeachment?"

He's missing the whole point. But if it dead-ends, that's my guess as to how he'd hammer his guests.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. I'd rather dead end on Articles voted on in the House than "nope, not enough to proceed." nt

[pwb]

12. Same old stale opinions and personalities.

Matthews lost his way years ago.