The New York Times published a rather brutal piece over the weekend on Donald Trump's problematic history with women. It painted a painful picture:
The New York Times interviewed dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence. In all, more than 50 interviews were conducted over the course of six weeks.
Their accounts -- many relayed here in their own words -- reveal unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct, according to the interviews, as well as court records and written recollections. The interactions occurred in his offices at Trump Tower, at his homes, at construction sites and backstage at beauty pageants. They appeared to be fleeting, unimportant moments to him, but they left lasting impressions on the women who experienced them.
The article, according to a spokesperson for the Times, is the most read political story the newspaper has published in 2016.
In response to the piece, we've seen some curious reactions from women close to the Republican candidate. His spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, said yesterday, for example, "Women know Donald Trump is a very successful businessperson. He's raised a wonderful family. His own wife endorsed him for president."
In a separate interview, Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, said, "I'm not in every interaction my father has, but he's not a groper."
And Melania Trump, the candidate's third wife, added in a different interview, "We know the truth. He's not Hitler."
So, let's review. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has an alarming history with women, but (a) he's not a genocidal groper; and (b) he's capable of picking up a campaign endorsement from his own wife.
Maybe, when looking for a national leader, Americans may look for a presidential candidate who can clear a higher bar, but this is nevertheless where things stand in the 2016 race.
As the House Republicans' Benghazi committee enters its third year, no one seems to be able to explain exactly why the partisan panel still exists, when it'll wrap up, or even why it was created in the first place.
Quotes like this one, published by USA Today, raise questions anew about this pointless waste of time and resources.
There was nothing the military could have done on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, to stop the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but the special House committee investigating the terrorist incident will continue to probe the Pentagon's actions that night, the committee's chairman said Tuesday.
"Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don't think there is any issue with respect to that. They couldn't," Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told Fox News.
Wait, hold on. As regular readers know, the whole point of the right-wing conspiracy theory is built around the idea that the military could've done more to intervene in Benghazi the night of the September 2012 attack, but it didn't for political reasons. It's the basis for the ridiculous "stand down" nonsense right-wing activists have pushed for years without proof.
Military leaders, the State Department, and multiple congressional investigations all concluded that the conspiracy theory is wrong, but House Republicans don't care, which is why they created a committee, led by Trey Gowdy, to tell conservatives what they want to hear.
Except, even Gowdy, who's spent more than two years exploring his party's conspiracy theories, doesn't believe the core question at the heart of the investigation. Neither, we learned this week, does his committee's former top attorney.
The panel's ranking Democrat, Maryland's Elijah Cummings, said in a statement, "Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years. The central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons was wrong."
If you're unfamiliar with the recent controversy surrounding Ben Rhodes, consider yourself fortunate. The New York Times Magazinepublished a profile on the influential figure of President Obama's national security team a few weeks ago, and the ensuing chatter has caused quite a stir in Beltway circles.
The article has not exactly withstood scrutiny. As Matt Yglesias explained last week, "Conservative media has enthusiastically embraced a handful of sensational lines [from the Times' piece] as proof of Obama's duplicity, while stories in the Atlantic, Mother Jones, Politico, New York magazine, and Slate have sliced and diced it as riddled with errors."
Nevertheless, the general premise proved too delicious for conservatives to pass up: the White House, the argument goes, took advantage of public ignorance and lazy reporters to sell the international nuclear agreement with Iran to the country with bogus claims. That's not even close to true, but that was the right's takeaway from the Times Magazine piece.
In fact, conservatives got themselves so worked up about this that the House Oversight Committee actually held a hearing yesterday to explore the lessons of the Times' article. As Politiconoted, the hearing didn't go as well as Republicans hoped.
Republicans wanted to make a Tuesday hearing in the House all about how White House messaging guru Ben Rhodes, who refused to testify, supposedly sold a false narrative about the Iran nuclear deal.
Instead, Democrats used the presence of another witness, former Bush administration official John Hannah, to hammer the Bush administration for allegedly peddling a false narrative about the Iraq War.
Democrats could hardly believe their eyes. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member, declared, "If our goal is to hear from an expert who actually promoted false, false White House narratives, then I think you picked the right person. This committee has basically created its own Republican echo chamber.... That is not just ironic, it's hypocritical."
It's worth pausing to appreciate just how extraordinary the circumstances were yesterday: House Republicans are convinced the White House used bogus information to spin reporters, push bogus narratives, and sell the country on a misguided policy in the Middle East. And to that end, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and his committee colleagues invited John Hannah to offer expert testimony.
There's a difference between what's mathematically possible and what's realistically probable. After Hillary Clinton won five of the six primaries in late April, it was still technically possible for Bernie Sanders to catch his rival among pledged delegates, but he'd need lopsided landslides in the May contests.
That hasn't happened. Narrow wins in Indiana and West Virginia helped Team Sanders with morale and fundraising, but they actually left him further from his goal. The same was true in yesterday's primaries, as MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald reported.
Bernie Sanders mini-winning streak ended Tuesday night in Kentucky, a state analysts expected he could win. The loss could take some wind out of supporters' sails at a critical time as they face increasing pressure to unify the Democratic Party behind likely nominee Hillary Clinton.
But it was a mixed night for the candidates. Sanders pulled out a comfortable single-digit win in Oregon, where he is likely to walk away with a solid block of delegates.
In practical terms, the Kentucky results, while incredibly close, are about bragging rights: the difference between a narrow win and a narrow loss is negligible. Sanders needed a landslide victory to keep pace, and his apparent defeat pushed his goal that much further away. Similarly, while the senator's success in Oregon was no doubt satisfying, Sanders' margin of victory was actually quite a bit smaller than Barack Obama's 2008 win in the same state, and to keep up with Clinton, it needed to be more than four times larger.
Yesterday, in other words, represented another major setback for the Sanders campaign: his win was too narrow, his loss was a step backwards, and the number of remaining opportunities he’ll have to close the gap continues to shrink.
The Vermonter continues to tell supporters that he might win the Democratic nomination. In remarks last night, Sanders said he faced a "steep climb," but he nevertheless believes he can wrap up the primary process with a majority of pledged delegates.
Which brings us back to the "mathematically possible" vs. "realistically probable" problem.
President Obama has spent years exploring policies intended to put more money in American workers' pockets. A minimum-wage increase is, at least for now, out of the question -- a Republican Congress won't consider it -- and so the White House has turned its attention to overtime policies.
In his State of the Union address last year, the president made a comment that may have seemed like an obscure goal: "We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they've earned." To that end, Obama unveiled a proposal last summer to change income thresholds for overtime eligibility -- that may sound a little dry, but stick with me -- and late yesterday, the Labor Department finalized new rules in the area. The Huffington Postdescribed it as "one of the most ambitious economic reforms of the Obama era."
The administration will accomplish that by raising what's known as the overtime salary threshold. Nearly all workers earning salaries beneath that threshold are entitled to time-and-a-half pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in a week.
The current threshold is just $23,660. The White House will be doubling that number, to $47,476, guaranteeing overtime rights for salaried workers earning less than that. The Labor Department will now update the threshold every three years to make sure it keeps pace with inflation.
The White House estimates that the change will bring overtime rights to 4.2 million workers who are currently excluded. It will also clarify eligibility for another 8.9 million workers who may or may not have overtime protections under the current rules, officials said.
"The overtime rule is about making sure middle-class jobs pay middle-class wages," Labor Secretary Tom Perez told reporters. "Some will see more money in their pockets.... Some will get more time with their family ... and everybody will receive clarity on where they stand, so that they can stand up for their rights."
All of this may seem like an obscure area of employment law, but it's important. As longtime readers may recall, under the old policy, that $23,660 represents a low income threshold for mandatory overtime -- those who make more than that can be classified by employers as "managers" who are exempt from overtime rules. The Obama administration is doubling that threshold.
And before you ask, "How in the world will this idea pass a GOP-led Congress?" remember that this shift is entirely regulatory. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the White House can make changes like this without congressional approval.
Robert Costa, national political reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about the string of bad headlines Donald Trump has suffered in the past week and how the Republican leader plans to rebut these assorted scandals to maintain public image. watch
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews about the upset at the Nevada state Democratic convention and what she calls "unacceptable" behavior from supporters of Bernie Sanders. watch
John Ralston, host of Ralston Live on Nevada PBS, and Angie Morelli, a Nevada Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders, talk with Rachel Maddow about the Nevada Democratic convention that dissolved into chaos, raising concerns about Democratic unity for the general election. watch
Senator Jeff Merkley, a supporter of Bernie Sanders, talks with Rachel Maddow about Sanders' insistence on staying in the Democratic race, the importance of making Sanders supporters feel like they're part of the process, and why he's confident Sanders Sanders supporters will ultimately be Democratic voters. watch
Chuck Todd, NBC News political director, discusses the pressure that is likely to grow for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the primary race as he fails to keep the pace he needs to win, and talks about whether anyone in the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama, could convince Sanders to give up. watch
* Iraq: "A suicide bomber attacked a crowded outdoor market in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing dozens in the latest in a wave of sectarian attacks claimed by the Islamic State in the Iraqi capital."
* Keep a close eye on this one: "The Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia over its alleged support for terrorism, despite stiff opposition from the White House."
* This will be an interesting investigation: "The United States Department of Justice has opened an investigation into state-sponsored doping by dozens of Russia's top athletes, two people familiar with the case said. The inquiry escalates what has been a roiling sports controversy into a federal criminal case involving foreign officials."
* The result of a 50-year fight in Mississippi: "The Cleveland School District has been ordered by a federal court to consolidate its majority black secondary schools with historical white schools, ending a five-decade legal battle to desegregate schools in the 12,000-population city in north Mississippi."
* Mexico: "Mexico's President, Enrique Pena Nieto, has proposed constitutional reform to legalize same-sex marriage across the country. The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling that opened the way to such unions. Gay marriage is only legal in the capital, Mexico City, and a few states."
* Indictment: "A grand jury has indicted an oil pipeline company and one of its employees on criminal charges related to a massive oil spill last year in Santa Barbara County, prosecutors announced Tuesday."
* GMOs: "Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and do not harm the environment, according to a comprehensive new analysis by the advisory group the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine."
In December 2014, the world finally had a chance to see a document known as the "torture report." An official investigation of "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the Bush/Cheney administration concluded that torture policies were not effective; the abuses were far more brutal than Americans had been led to believe; and the CIA had provided inaccurate information about the operation of the program.
This was, however, what we learned from an executive summary released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The full, 6,700-page report, which included undisclosed information about "black site" prisons, has never been released to the public -- it's still considered classified -- and courts have ruled the multi-volume report is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
This week, Yahoo News highlighted a striking, previously unknown detail: the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general’s office "mistakenly" destroyed its copy of the full report.
While another copy of the report exists elsewhere at the CIA, the erasure of the controversial document by the office charged with policing agency conduct has alarmed the U.S. senator who oversaw the torture investigation and reignited a behind-the-scenes battle over whether the full unabridged report should ever be released, according to multiple intelligence community sources familiar with the incident.
The deletion of the document has been portrayed by agency officials to Senate investigators as an "inadvertent" foul-up by the inspector general. In what one intelligence community source described as a series of errors straight "out of the Keystone Cops," CIA inspector general officials deleted an uploaded computer file with the report and then accidentally destroyed a disk that also contained the document, filled with thousands of secret files about the CIA's use of "enhanced" interrogation methods.
That doesn't sound reassuring. Indeed, Roll Callreported yesterday that the revelations from the Yahoo News piece are "raising concerns" on Capitol Hill "about the fate of the document."