Latest StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 12/5/2019
E.g., 12/5/2019

In impeachment inquiry, House GOP has not used its time wisely

11/05/19 10:13AM

A couple of weeks ago, many House Republicans demanded access to private depositions in the impeachment inquiry. There was a degree of irony dogging their complaints: many of those whining were already welcome to participate.

Complicating matters, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Rachel on the show that "very few" House Republicans who've participated in the process have taken full advantage of the opportunity, apparently because "they don't want to do the actual work."

And now we can take this one step further. Yesterday, the House released transcripts from two impeachment inquiry witnesses: Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Obviously, what matters most are the insights they shared as part of their depositions.

But the transcripts also offer a peek into how House Republicans have conducted themselves during their proceedings. Based on this Washington Post report, it does not appear they used their time wisely.

[I]nside the secure room in the Capitol basement where the proceedings are taking place, Republicans have used their time to complain that testimony has become public, going after their colleagues who were quoted in media reports commenting on witness appearances, and quizzing witnesses themselves on how their statements had been released.

Dana Milbank added that GOP members "pursued one conspiracy theory after another involving the Bidens, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, deep state social-media 'tracking' and mishandling classified information. They ate up a good chunk of time merely complaining that Yovanovitch's opening statement had been made public (which under the rules was allowed)."

At face value, it seems rather obvious that House Republicans involved in the inquiry weren't especially interested in learning the facts about what transpired. But given the circumstances, the GOP members' passive indifference isn't the only problem.

read more

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks while meeting with President-elect Donald Trump following a meeting in the Oval Office Nov. 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

On farming, Trump doesn't think Obama was socialistic enough

11/05/19 09:20AM

A decade ago, with the United States in the grips of the Great Recession, the American automotive industry -- the backbone of the nation's manufacturing sector -- was on the brink of collapse. It wasn't a popular move, but Barack Obama launched a rescue package to save the auto manufacturers. The price of the bailout: $12 billion.

A decade later, Donald Trump's trade war has taken a severe toll on many American farmers, prompting the Republican administration to launch two bailouts for the agricultural sector. The combined price of the farmers' bailouts: $28 billion.

In fact, research from the American Farm Bureau Federation noted last week that nearly 40% of all farm income in the United States this year will come from federal aid. As Garance Franke-Ruta noted the other day, it's an economic dynamic that, in a rather literal sense, is starting to look like socialism.

It was against this backdrop that Donald Trump headlined a campaign rally in Mississippi on Friday night, where he found all of this worthy of boast. In fact, the president seemed eager to draw a comparison between his record and that of his immediate predecessor.

"I mean think of that: $28 billion.... Not bad, right? Not bad. Do you think Obama would do that? I don't think so."

As a substantive matter, Barack Obama wouldn't have needed to bail out farmers from a trade war because Obama would've known not to launch one. But putting that aside, it's hard not to marvel at the point of Trump's boast: Obama, in the Republican's mind, wouldn't have been eager enough to embrace a socialistic solution.

Indeed, when Obama rescued the American automotive industry, GOP lawmakers were apoplectic, convinced that the Democratic president was waging war on the nation's free-enterprise system. A decade later, we're apparently supposed to believe Obama wasn't hostile enough to the free market?

Stepping back, at the same Mississippi event, Trump referenced Obama by name 14 times -- including a not-so-subtle riff on Trump's belief that "Barack Hussein Obama" was lazy. I've long been fascinated by the Republican's preoccupation with his predecessor, but is it perhaps getting worse?

read more

Democratic presidential candidates wave as they enter the stage for the second night of the Democratic primary debate hosted by NBC News at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, Thursday, June 27, 2019, in Miami.

Latest polls bring 2020 race into sharper focus

11/05/19 08:40AM

For much of 2019, it's been easy to see the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses as contests on a distant horizon. Everyone realized the party's voters would eventually have their say, but that phase of the process seemed like it would never arrive.

It doesn't seem like that anymore. The Iowa caucuses -- the first nominating contest -- are 90 days from today. The enormous Democratic field is slowly starting to shrink, with two more candidates ending their candidacies in the last two weeks. Iowa's Liberty & Justice Celebration, a party dinner seen as "the last major candidate gathering before the caucuses," has now come and gone.

With developments like these in mind, it's a good time to stop thinking about the nominating contests as something that'll happen eventually and start thinking about them as something that'll happen relatively soon.

And the closer we get to voters casting ballots, the more it's worth paying attention to polling. There's been quite a bit of data released over the last few days, some of which relates to the race for the Democratic nomination, some of which refers to the general election. Let's start with the former, taking a look at the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:

1. Joe Biden: 27% (down 4 points from mid-September)
2. Elizabeth Warren: 23% (down 2 points)
3. Bernie Sanders: 19% (up 5 points)
4. Pete Buttigieg: 6% (down one point)
5. Amy Klobuchar: 5% (up three points)
6. Kamala Harris: 4% (down one point)
Every other candidate was at 3% or lower.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll of Democratic-leaning registered voters is similar, but not identical.

1. Biden: 28% (down one point since early-September)
2. Warren: 23% (up five points)
3. Sanders: 17% (down two points)
4. Buttigieg: 9% (up five points)
Every other candidate was below 3% in this poll.

And then there was the latest national Fox News poll:

1. Biden: 31% (down one point since early-October)
2. Warren: 21% (down one point)
3. Sanders: 19% (up two points)
4. Buttigieg: 7% (up three points)
Every other candidate was at or below 3% in this poll.

With this in mind, let's take stock of some of what the latest data is telling us.

read more


Trump's move on Paris climate agreement raises 2020 stakes

11/05/19 08:00AM

Donald Trump had only been in office for six months when he announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, isolating the United States, which had helped negotiate the international agreement. In practical terms, however, the president's declaration was largely symbolic: under the terms of the deal, no country can withdraw in the first three years.

The Paris agreement took effect on Nov. 4, 2016, which meant the earliest possible date any country could even consider withdrawal was yesterday, Nov. 4, 2019. As the Associated Press reported, the Republican administration wasted no time.

For more than two years President Donald Trump has talked about pulling the United States out of the landmark Paris climate agreement. Starting Monday he finally can do something about it.

Even then, though, the withdrawal process takes a year and wouldn't become official until at least the day after the 2020 presidential election.

It's worth noting that the president appears to know very little about the climate agreement he's eager to reject. Kellyanne Conway conceded two years ago that when it came to the climate accord, Trump "started with a conclusion." That's generally not how responsible policymaking is supposed to work.

When the president delivered remarks explaining his rationale in June 2017, a Vox analysis said of the remarks, "It is a remarkable address, in its own way, in that virtually every passage contains something false or misleading. The sheer density of bulls**t is almost admirable, from a performance art perspective."

In the same speech, Trump looked ahead, assuring the world, "We're getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair." There's little evidence to suggest the White House made any effort to follow through on this half-hearted commitment.

But as indefensible as Trump's indifference to the climate crisis is, and as painful as his willful ignorance has become, yesterday's developments raised the stakes of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in a specific way.

read more

When facing a news deluge, take one story at a time

When facing a news deluge, take one story at a time

11/04/19 09:12PM

Rachel Maddow looks at just some of the news stories from the past 48 hours that would be show-stoppers in their own right were it not for all of the bigger stories all breaking simultaneously. From court rules on Donald Trump's taxes to the U.S. pull-out of the Paris Climate Accord, all you can do it take one story at a time. watch

Monday's Mini-Report, 11.4.19

11/04/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* One of today's more striking stories: "Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told House impeachment investigators last month that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told her she should tweet out support or praise for President Donald Trump if she wanted to save her job, according to a transcript of her testimony made public Monday."

* Colorado: "An alleged white supremacist was arrested in Colorado for plotting to blow up one of the state's oldest synagogues, federal court records released Monday show."

* Hmm: "The Justice Department is trying to unearth the identity of the Trump administration official who denounced the president in a New York Times Op-Ed last year under the byline Anonymous, according to a letter from a senior law enforcement official on Monday."

* The administration's latest defeat: "A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas."

* Extending TPS: "The U.S. government has extended temporary protection for Hondurans living in the United States by a year, Honduran officials said on Friday, following a similar extension for Salvadorans in a rollback of U.S. plans to end the program."

* Trump occasionally lies when the truth would be good enough: "It was a vivid scene worthy of the ending of a Hollywood thriller, the image of a ruthless terrorist mastermind finally brought to justice 'whimpering and crying and screaming all the way' to his death. But it may be no more true than a movie script."

* Remember when Republicans cared about stories like these? "The federal government's outstanding public debt has surpassed $23 trillion for the first time in history, according to data from the Treasury Department released on Friday."

read more

E. Jean Carroll is photographed, Sunday, June 23, 2019, in New York.

Following sexual assault allegation, Carroll files suit against Trump

11/04/19 02:52PM

E. Jean Carroll spent years as a prominent writer, media figure, and advice columnist, including having hosted a show on America's Talking, which later became MSNBC. As regular readers may recall, in June, she also joined a long list of women who've accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct.

Indeed, in a recently published book, Carroll described an alleged encounter in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, which the writer described as a violent sexual assault committed by the future president. Though definitively proving or disproving Caroll's claim is difficult -- there is no security footage to review and no physical evidence to scrutinize -- the writer said she confided in two friends shortly after the alleged incident, telling them at the time what she said occurred. Those friends soon after came forward with on-the-record accounts.

The president has denied the claim, arguing, among other things, that his latest accuser is a "liar" who isn't his "type." As NBC News reported today, Carroll is now suing Trump for defamation.

The suit, filed in New York State Supreme Court, alleges that Trump, "through express statements and deliberate implications, accused Carroll of lying about the rape in order to increase book sales, carry out a political agenda, advance a conspiracy with the Democratic Party, and make money."

"Trump knew that these statements were false; at a bare minimum, he acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity," the complaint said, adding that Trump's statements "inflicted emotional pain and suffering, they damaged her reputation, and they caused substantial professional harm."

For her part, the plaintiff said she was "filing this lawsuit for every woman who's been pinched, prodded, cornered, felt-up, pushed against a wall, grabbed, groped, assaulted, and has spoken up only to be shamed, demeaned, disgraced, passed over for promotions, fired, and forgotten."

Carroll added, "While I can no longer hold Donald Trump accountable for assaulting me more than twenty years ago, I can hold him accountable for lying about it and I fully intend to do so."

read more