RUTHFULLY YOURS

Mr. Nadler, likely to be the new chairman of House Judiciary come January, seems not to have noticed that radicalism didn’t sell on Tuesday. Democrats gained a House majority by running impressive candidates who presented themselves to suburban voters as professional and moderate. As the Journal’s William McGurn has noted, one of the winning Democrats in a New Jersey swing district even positioned herself as an anti-tax candidate by pretending that the 2017 Trump tax cuts were actually tax hikes. In time we’ll know by their voting records whether the new suburban representatives really are moderates, but the strategy certainly worked on Tuesday.

Meanwhile the candidates who presented themselves as unapologetic leftists didn’t fare so well. The Journal’s Allysia Finley notes the gubernatorial campaign losses suffered by Andrew Gillum in Florida and Richard Cordray in Ohio, as well as the likely defeat of Stacey Abrams in Georgia. Ms. Finley adds:

In places where progressive candidates won, they tacked to the center. In Colorado, Rep. Jared Polis, who had backed “Medicare for all” legislation, modulated his politics by opposing state referendums that would raise taxes on high earners and limit fracking. During one debate, he described himself as a “convener in chief” who would work with both parties.

By pledging not to raise taxes in Connecticut, Democrat Ned Lamont sought to avoid becoming a casualty in the voter revolt against Gov. Dannel Malloy’s ruinous tax-and-spend policies. Mr. Lamont narrowly defeated Republican Bob Stefanowski, who campaigned on eliminating state taxes on income, estates and corporate profits.

But Mr. Nadler seems to be preparing House Judiciary to become the legislative arm of the so-called “Resistance” against our duly-elected President. Perhaps it isn’t all that surprising given the way Mr. Nadler became Judiciary’s lead Democrat. After former Rep. John Conyers Jr. resigned last year amid numerous allegations of harassing women, the New York Times described the Nadler argument for replacing him:

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York has a bold pitch to take over the top Democratic spot on the House Judiciary Committee — that he is best positioned to lead impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

“As our constitutional expert, and with his demonstrated leadership on impeachment in the 90s, Nadler is our strongest member to lead a potential impeachment,” Mr. Nadler wrote on a pocket-size leaflet outlining his record.

Eleven months later, still without evidence of the claimed Trump collusion with Russia and having just heard from voters that impeachment is not at the top of their agenda, it seems that Mr. Nadler isn’t listening.

But the estimable Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist was listening to Mr. Nadler this week as he rode an Acela train. She reports that he talked by telephone with friends and associates about the possibilities for impeaching both President Trump and new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Ms. Hemingway reports on one conversation in which the lawmaker described castigating the FBI for not investigating the claims against then-Judge Kavanaugh enough. She adds:

His other plan is to go after Kavanaugh because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.” [Rep. Nadler] claimed that The Atlantic published an article about the allegations of a third woman. Then he claimed that when Kavanaugh was “asked at a committee hearing under oath when he first heard of the subject, he said, ‘When I’d heard of the Atlantic article.’ But there is an email chain apparently dating from well before that from him about ‘How can we deal with this?’” Nadler told the caller.

Nadler was apparently discussing a slightly different claim, since debunked, which is that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he denied hearing of The New Yorker’s disputed allegation involving Deborah Ramirez until the story came out. Considering that The New Yorker included a denial from Kavanaugh in its own controversial story, and was asking him about it right before publication, and he acknowledged all that in his Senate testimony, it’s unclear how fruitful such a perjury claim would be.

When the caller objected to the plan, Nadler pushed back, “That’s not technical, that’s real.” He conceded that maybe it was not a great plan, since even if Kavanaugh could be removed, it might not result in the political results desired.

“The worst-case scenario — or best case depending on your point of view — you prove he committed perjury, about a terrible subject and the Judicial Conference recommends you impeach him. So the president appoints someone just as bad.”

When the caller suggested going after Kavanaugh quietly, Nadler explained, “You can’t do it quietly because word will get out that the FBI or the committee is reaching out to witnesses.”

As to whether Mr. Nadler is planning to exercise partisan and irresponsible leadership at House Judiciary, it seems that the word is already out.

***

In Other News

Crazy in Love
“Fans blame Beyoncé for Beto O’Rourke’s loss to Ted Cruz,” New York Post,” November 7

You’ll Feel Better If You Try Not to Think of It as a Loss
“Mr. O’Rourke ran closer than expected against Mr. Cruz thanks to a historic midterm turnout, and the Democrat’s unconventional success prompted calls for him to seek the presidency long before the polls closed Tuesday night,” New York Times, Nov. 6

Finally
“Alyssa Milano Won’t Speak At Next Women’s March Till Leaders Denounce Anti-Semitism,” Forward, Nov. 7

CONTINUE AT SITE