So says Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist. The era of divided government will not be dull.

If you don’t recognize Nadler’s name already, you will by next year. He’s about to take the gavel on the House Judiciary Committee. If Democrats do in fact open an investigation into Kavanaugh, he’ll be the man in charge. A point to ponder as you read: How much would he have said differently here even if he knew people were eavesdropping? I mean, this is why Democratic voters voted as they did last night. Lashing Trump and his appointees, like Kavanaugh, is not only what liberals desire, it’s a de facto campaign promise from the leadership.

[Nadler and a friend] discussed two routes for investigating new Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. The first is to go after the FBI for how they handled the investigation into unsubstantiated claims he sexually assaulted women. “They didn’t even do a half-ass job,” he said. “They didn’t interview 30 witnesses who said ‘Interview me! I’ve got a lot to say!’” he said, while mimicking people waving their hands to be called on.

His other plan is to go after Kavanaugh because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.” He 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…

“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.”

The specific “perjury” that Nadler seems to have in mind is based on a misunderstanding and has already been debunked, as Hemingway notes. But never mind that. I’m more interested in his apparent belief that impeachment might succeed, forcing Trump to fill the Kavanaugh vacancy.

Is Jerry Nadler under the impression that Democrats now have 67 Senate seats? Or is he under the impression that 20 or so Republicans might vote to remove Kavanaugh even if you had video of him cackling about his plans to perjure himself before the Senate? Maybe, if you had something really damaging on him, they’d agree to censure.

Or, third option, does he think that the shame of being impeached by the House would drive Kavanaugh to resign, even though he just endured a month of being accused of serial gang rape as a teenager in order to win confirmation?

The only possible conclusion: Jerry Nadler likes to tip a few during his train trips.

Here’s McConnell this morning in fine concern-trolling form, warning the Democrats against aggressive presidential oversight — sorry, I mean presidential harassment. Based on how often he repeats that phrase here, he’s clearly hoping to start it circulating among Republicans as a talking point, beginning with the tweeter-in-chief himself. You can’t make “fetch” happen, but “presidential harassment”? Maybe, maybe. Coming soon to a Hannity monologue near you.