The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM


... more Duration: {{video.duration.momentjs}}

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 12/9/2019
E.g., 12/9/2019
The Willis Tower (C), formerly known as the Sears Tower, dominates the southern end of the downtown skyline in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty)

Trump keeps finding American cities to denounce

10/29/19 09:26AM

Last month, Donald Trump blasted Los Angeles and San Francisco as once-great cities that have been "devastated" by "the left-wing agenda." In July, Baltimore was the president's target. Atlanta and Philadelphia have also been on the receiving end of the Republican's scorn.

Yesterday, it was apparently Chicago's turn. The Associated Press reported:

Visiting Chicago for the first time as president, Donald Trump disparaged the city Monday as a haven for criminals that is "embarrassing to us as a nation." The city's top cop sat out Trump's speech to protest the president's immigration policies and frequently divisive rhetoric.

According to the official transcript, the president told the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference, "All over the world, they're talking about Chicago. Afghanistan is a safe place by comparison. It's true."

If pressed, I imagine Trump could tell us all about the imagined conversations he's had with people from around the globe, many of whom marveled at Chicago's crime rate. The stories would no doubt feature a lot of people who repeatedly used the word "sir" and were crying during their conversations with the president.

But putting that aside, what amazes is just how frequently the American president takes aim at communities in his own country.

There's a strain of conservative thought that insists that the left is made up of snobs who think they're superior -- culturally, intellectually -- to people who live outside of metropolitan areas. I've long found the complaints unpersuasive, but I've lost count of how many far-right events I've covered in which speakers have told audiences, "These liberals think they're better than you."

It's against this backdrop that the Republican president has spent a fair amount of time denouncing urban areas -- places with large minority populations and home to many immigrants -- with scorn and contempt. As Trump put it yesterday, he considers major American cities like Chicago to be "embarrassing" to the country.

read more

Trump continues to mishandle sensitive national security information

10/29/19 08:50AM

When Donald Trump announced the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS, the president made a variety of comments -- about the mission, about his background, about his record, etc. -- that were plainly false. NBC News' Courtney Kube and Carol E. Lee reported last night, however, that many of the other details "were either highly classified or tactically sensitive, and their disclosure by the president made intelligence and military officials cringe, according to current and former U.S. officials."

The overarching concern about Trump's disclosures on the al-Baghdadi raid, officials said, is that he gave America's enemies details that could make intelligence gathering and similar military operations more difficult and more dangerous to pull off. [...]

Other information Trump discussed provided America's enemies with tactical details on how the military carries out a raid like the one on al-Baghdadi, officials said, including the robot, the helicopter flight patterns and how U.S. forces entered the compound.

There was, of course, a degree of irony to the circumstances: while the president was casually throwing around highly sensitive information, to the consternation of national security professionals, he was also complaining about "leaks" and others' inability to show discretion with classified materials.

But stepping back, the broader issue isn't just the carelessness Trump showed on Sunday morning; it's also the frequency with which he's mishandled sensitive national security information.

In fact, it's reached the point at which I came up with a Top 10 list.

read more

The White House is seen under dark rain clouds in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2015. (Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty)

Brutal scandal testimony to come from inside the White House

10/29/19 08:00AM

As damaging evidence against Donald Trump in the Ukraine scandal continues to mount, the president continues to insist he had an innocuous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskiy in July. To hear the Republican tell it, the conversation was "perfect."

For the first time, Congress will hear today from a highly credible witness from inside the White House who has a very different perspective. NBC News reported overnight:

A U.S. Army official and White House national security official plans to tell members of Congress conducting an impeachment inquiry that he was on the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine's leader in which Trump asked for an investigation into the Bidens, and that he raised concerns about it.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, considered the request so damaging to American national security that he reported it to a superior, according to his opening statement obtained by NBC News.

Vindman will be the first White House official to testify in the impeachment inquiry. He'll also be the first witness to have listened in on the infamous July 25 Trump-Zelensky call.

"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," Vindman is expected to say in his opening statement.

The National Security Council expert was so concerned that Trump's scheme would "undermine U.S. national security" that he reported his concerns to his superiors -- twice. After a July 10 meeting, Vindman took his objections to the National Security Council's lead attorney, John Eisenberg, after hearing U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland reference a quid-pro-quo scheme. Vindman then spoke up again after the July 25 call between the two presidents.

And why is this testimony so important? A few reasons, actually.

read more

Monday's Mini-Report, 10.28.19

10/28/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Mark your calendars: "The House is expected to vote Thursday on a Democratic resolution that will lay out the next steps in the impeachment inquiry, according to a senior congressional source."

* California: "Flames consumed more than 600 acres of a Los Angeles hillside Monday, shutting down a major commuter thoroughfare and threatening the renowned Getty Center museum, officials said. More than 1,100 firefighters from agencies across Southern California battled the blaze that threatens about 10,000 homes and businesses, authorities said."

* Brexit: "Britain got Brexit breathing space but no clarity on Monday when the European Union granted a three-month delay to the U.K.'s departure from the bloc."

* So unnecessary: "President Donald Trump's administration is banning all flights to Cuba other than those to the city of Havana in the latest round of crackdowns on the small island nation."

* GM: "The United Auto Workers gave final approval Friday for a new four-year labor contract with General Motors. The ratification brings to an end the union's 40-day strike, which cost the automaker well over $2 billion."

* Oh, John Solomon: "Lev Parnas, recently indicted for foreign influence in U.S. elections, collaborated closely with The Hill's John Solomon to fuel spurious allegations involving the Bidens and Ukraine."

* Facebook disappoints again: "When Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook was developing a section for news, he said it would be devoted to curating "high quality" information from 'trustworthy' sources. That was back in April. On Friday, as Facebook began rolling out the product for testing to users in the United States, the company revealed a baffling decision: Among reputable partners like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post, it had decided to include Breitbart in its list of sources for Facebook News."

read more


White House: Kelly 'unequipped to handle the genius' of Trump

10/28/19 12:56PM

It's been nearly 10 months since John Kelly stepped down as Donald Trump's White House chief of staff, and according to his latest statements, the retired general feels a little bad about it -- not because he liked the job, but apparently because Kelly believes he could've helped the president avoid some of his costly recent mistakes.

Kelly said Saturday that before departing the White House he privately told Trump not to hire a "yes man."

"I said, whatever you do, don't hire a 'yes man,' someone who won't tell you the truth. Don't do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached," Kelly said at the conservative Washington Examiner Political Summit.

Kelly said he warned the president not to hire a lackey to run his staff. "Don't hire someone that will just, you know, nod and say, 'You know, that's a great idea Mr. President,'" he told the partisan crowd. "'Because you will be impeached.'"

At a certain level, Kelly's comments are self-serving in ways that undermine their credibility. To hear the retired general tell it, he had what it took to steer Trump away from pitfalls, crimes, and impeachable offenses. It's a strength Kelly apparently believes acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney lacks.

The trouble is, Kelly's record doesn't exactly back up the boast. After all, he was in the West Wing from July 2017 to January 2019, and during that time, the Republican president committed all kinds of misdeeds, as the Mueller Report documented in great detail.

If Kelly knew just what to do to prevent presidential high crimes and misdemeanors, his efforts fell short.

But what struck me as truly amazing was the on-the-record response to Kelly's comments from White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham: "I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President."

No, seriously, that was her official statement.

read more

Monday's Campaign Round-Up, 10.28.19

10/28/19 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* Yesterday, Donald Trump's re-election campaign launched a fundraising campaign based on the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS.

* Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) has thrown her support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) presidential campaign. She's the fifth sitting U.S. House member to endorse the Vermont senator's candidacy. Overall, Sanders now ranks fifth in the 2020 field for House endorsements, trailing Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

* On a related note, on Election Day 2020, Bernie Sanders will be 79 years old, though the Washington Post reports that the independent lawmaker wants that to be seen as an asset for his presidential campaign.

* As a member of Congress, Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) was occasionally derided as "the Koch Brothers' Congressman." Now that he's Donald Trump's secretary of State, eyeing a possible U.S. Senate race in 2020, Pompeo reportedly discussed the race with billionaire Charles Koch late last week.

* On a related note, the Kansas City Star ran a rather brutal editorial on Friday, directed at the Republican cabinet secretary: "If Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is running to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, then he should quit his rather important day job and do that. Or if, as he told The Star and The Wichita Eagle in a testy, credulity-straining interview on Thursday, he isn't even thinking about it, then he should by all means focus on U.S. diplomacy -- remember diplomacy? -- and stop hanging out here every chance he gets."

* As the number of college students casting ballots grows, Republican officials in a variety of states are taking new steps to make it harder for these young voters to participate.

read more

The Pentagon, the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, Arlington County, Virginia.

Possible Trump role raises concerns about Pentagon's JEDI contract

10/28/19 11:18AM

At first blush, the Pentagon's Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract -- a multi-billion-dollar cloud-computing initiative -- may only seem relevant to those closely involved with national security and the tech industry. But there's a bit more to this one.

Microsoft has emerged victorious in a dramatic competition for public cloud resources for the U.S. Defense Department, beating out market leader Amazon Web Services, the Pentagon said on Friday. The contract could be worth as much as $10 billion over a decade, according to a statement. [...]

Early in the process Amazon was seen as the favorite, partly because its AWS business won a deal with the CIA in 2013. Also Amazon had been certified at the highest existing security clearance level, while Microsoft sought to catch up.

It's entirely possible that Microsoft won the contract strictly on the merits and there's no concern about possible presidential corruption. That said, Donald Trump hasn't exactly made it easy to believe the most benign interpretation of events.

Let's back up and review how we arrived at this point. As regular readers may recall, about a year into Trump's presidency, Axios spoke to five sources close to the White House who said the Republican is eager to  “go after” and its CEO, Jeff Bezos. Referring to Trump, one source said at the time, "He's obsessed with Amazon. Obsessed."

The article added, "The president would love to clip CEO Jeff Bezos' wings. But he doesn't have a plan to make that happen."

Trump's preoccupation with Bezos has always been a little weird. It's effectively a political bank shot of presidential contempt: the Republican hates the Washington Post's coverage of his administration, which leads Trump to hate its owner, which then leads the president to also hate Bezos' other businesses, including Amazon Web Services.

It was against this backdrop that Trump announced in July -- just as the Pentagon was reportedly prepared to announce a decision on the JEDI contract -- that he was looking “very seriously” at intervening in the contracting process because unnamed people had told him "it wasn't competitively bid."

Even at the time, the comments suggested that Trump has no idea what he was saying. There was a competitive bidding process, and no company had secured the contract.

Nevertheless, on the heels of the president's comments, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he intended to review the contract. According to a Washington Post report, the Pentagon chief's reexamination was the result of White House instructions and "11th-hour Oval Office intervention."

read more

Oil rig pumpjacks, also known as thirsty birds, extract crude from the Wilmington Field oil deposits area near Long Beach, California in this July 30, 2013 file photo.

On Syrian oil, Trump says US 'should be able to take some'

10/28/19 10:37AM

Donald Trump has spent the better part of a month telling the world that the United States is withdrawing from parts of Syria. It's increasingly obvious, however, that the president's claims aren't altogether true. Indeed, Defense Secretary Mark Esper explained on Friday that the Pentagon is dispatching armored vehicles and combat troops into Syria in order to protect oil fields.

The Washington Post had a fascinating behind-the-scenes report on this, noting that Trump administration officials came to realize that the president wouldn't be swayed by focusing on how his decision would affect other countries, because Trump didn't care if U.S. adversaries grew stronger as a result of his agenda. What the Republican did care about, however, was oil -- so that's what officials emphasized to steer him away from the complete withdrawal he had in mind.

One official described the process of changing Trump's mind with an oil-centric pitch: "This is like feeding a baby its medicine in yogurt or applesauce." (The baby, in this analogy, is the Commander in Chief of the world's most dominant military.)

That said, the officials who assumed the president would be swayed by arguments related to oil were correct. Consider Trump's comments yesterday while announcing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's demise.

"[W]e are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil. It's okay. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight. But there's massive amounts of oil.

"And we're securing it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it stops ISIS, because ISIS got tremendous wealth from that oil. We have taken it. It's secured. Number two -- and again, somebody else may claim it, but either we'll negotiate a deal with whoever is claiming it, if we think it's fair, or we will militarily stop them very quickly."

Reflecting on the Syrian oil's value, Trump went on to say that the United States "should be able to take some," adding, "[W]hat I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly."

In context, "it" appeared to refer to extracting oil.

read more

Baghdadi mission reportedly succeeded 'in spite of' Trump's actions

10/28/19 09:25AM

The successful U.S. mission targeting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS, relied heavily on strong alliances and trust in U.S. intelligence agencies. It created a degree of irony to the circumstances: Donald Trump has made little effort to hide his disdain for strong alliances and trusting U.S. intelligence agencies.

But digging a little deeper, a more serious contradiction emerges. The New York Times spoke to intelligence, military, and counterterrorism officials yesterday who emphasized that U.S. forces were "zeroing in on" on the ISIS leader when the American president ordered the withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria. The Times explained that Trump's policy shift changed the nature of the operation, and not for the better.

... Mr. Trump's abrupt withdrawal order three weeks ago disrupted the meticulous planning underway and forced Pentagon officials to speed up the plan for the risky night raid before their ability to control troops, spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared with the pullout, the officials said.

Mr. al-Baghdadi's death in the raid on Saturday, they said, occurred largely in spite of, and not because of, Mr. Trump's actions.

This reporting has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News.

The same article noted that it was the Kurds who "provided more intelligence for the raid than any single country," adding that the Kurds "continued to provide information to the C.I.A. on Mr. al-Baghdadi's location even after Mr. Trump's decision to withdraw the American troops left the Syrian Kurds to confront a Turkish offensive alone."

read more

After decrying leaks, Trump shares sensitive details on Baghdadi raid

10/28/19 08:45AM

In his remarks yesterday announcing the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS, Donald Trump thanked Russia before expressing his gratitude toward anyone else. "Russia treated us great," the American president declared.

He added that he notified Russia in advance that the U.S. was "going over an area where they had a lot of firepower" but not about the purpose of the raid. "We spoke to the Russians. We told them we're coming in. They said, 'Thank you for telling us.' They were very good," Trump said, adding, "They did not know the mission but they knew we were going over an area where they had a lot of firepower."

Key Democratic congressional leaders, however, were deliberately kept out of the loop.

President Donald Trump said he did not give many congressional leaders advance notice of the raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Saturday because he was afraid of "leaks," he told reporters at a Sunday news conference. [...]

Trump said the members of Congress he informed ahead of the raid were North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, both Republicans. Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is on what is known as the "Gang of Eight" for intelligence-related matters: Senate and House leaders from both parties and the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Trump said only "very few people" were made aware of the raid, naming top officials in his administration and later Burr and Graham.

Trump kept Lindsey Graham informed -- the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is not a member of the Gang of Eight, and there was no procedural reason to brief him in advance of highly sensitive intelligence -- but he kept House leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in the dark.

It's worth emphasizing that this isn't just a question of discourtesy. In our system of government, a president is not supposed to share intelligence secrets exclusively with members of one party.

By way of an explanation, the president, asked if he'd informed the House Speaker, said, "No, I didn't. I didn't do -- I didn't do that. I wanted to make sure this kept secret. I don't want to have men lost -- and women. I don't want to have people lost."

Trump added, "Washington leaks like I've never seen before. There's nothing -- there's no country in the world that leaks like we do. And Washington is a leaking machine. And I told my people we will not notify them until the -- our great people are out."

There are a few glaring problems with this.

read more

Trump delivers al-Baghdadi news in a decidedly Trumpian way

10/28/19 08:00AM

One of the best moments of Donald Trump's presidency also could've been one of the easiest. All the president had to do was read a straightforward statement -- which the White House had 12 hours to prepare -- announcing the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS.

The development was unambiguously good news, a boost for U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, and cause for congratulations for all involved. It was also an opportunity for Trump to act like a president, if only for a few minutes, with remarks that could've helped define his term.

But as is too often the case, Trump lacked the wherewithal to restrain his worst instincts. During a rambling 48-minute appearance, the Republican used a tone one might expect on a playground; he needlessly shared sensitive operational details; he made multiple canine references for reasons that were not at all clear; he took the time to praise a far-right media network; he made self-aggrandizing claims for no reason; and Trump lied rather brazenly about his own record.

Consider this head-shaking moment, in which the president referred to ISIS leaders:

"You know, these people are very smart. They're not into the use of cellphones anymore. They're not -- they're very technically brilliant. You know, they use the Internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump. But they use the Internet incredibly well.

"And what they've done with the Internet, through recruiting and everything -- and that's why he died like a dog, he died like a coward."

You could almost see the wheels turning in Trump's mind, as he started to marvel at how impressed he was with himself, before realizing that he should at least try to stick to the topic at hand.

After insisting that al-Baghdadi's death is more significant that Osama bin Laden's -- a dubious assertion, to be sure -- viewers were treated to this Trump ridiculous gem:

read more


About The Rachel Maddow Show

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.


Latest Book