The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM


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

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 10/23/2019
E.g., 10/23/2019

Why Trump's response to the intel whistleblower scandal falls short

09/19/19 12:42PM

Nearly a week after the controversy first broke, Donald Trump today offered a response to reports about the complaint filed by an intelligence community whistleblower. The president's argument needs some work.

"Another Fake News story out there - It never ends! Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. No problem!" Trump wrote on Twitter.

"Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially 'heavily populated' call. I would only do what is right anyway, and only do good for the USA!," he continued before calling the reports an example of "Presidential Harassment!"

So let me see if I have this straight. According to Donald Trump, we shouldn't believe he extended a provocative "promise" to a foreign leader because the American president is far too smart to do something dangerous around witnesses. Given the president's obvious limitations, the number of people likely to find this persuasive is small.

What's more, to characterize the controversy as "fake news" is ridiculous, even for Trump. There really was a complaint filed by an intelligence community whistleblower. The inspector general's office really did examine the complaint, and he really did consider it credible and urgent. The IG really did contact the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI really did reach out to the Justice Department. They really did work on a plan to circumvent the legal process on congressional disclosure.

There's nothing "fake" about any of this.

Finally, Trump's assertion that he's far too clever to say "something inappropriate" to foreign officials might be easier to believe if there weren't already examples of him saying inappropriate things to foreign officials.

While the president works on his talking points, the intelligence community's inspector general who received the whistleblower's complaint was on Capitol Hill this morning, though the New York Times reports that his closed-door testimony hasn't gone especially well for those seeking answers.

read more

Thursday's Campaign Round-Up, 9.19.19

09/19/19 12:00PM

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

* On the heels of Bernie Sanders' campaign shaking up its staffing in New Hampshire, the Vermont senator's operation has also parted ways with its political director in Iowa.

* The latest national Fox News poll found Joe Biden leading the Democrats' 2020 field with 29% support, followed by Sanders at 18% and Elizabeth Warren at 16%. Sen. Kamala Harris was fourth with 7%, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 5% and Beto O'Rourke at 4%.

* In hypothetical general-election match-ups, the same poll also found Biden leading Donald Trump by 14 points (52% to 38%), while Sanders leads the president by eight (48% to 40%) and Warren leads by six (46% to 40%).

* With Kamala Harris' campaign struggling to reach the top tier, Politico reports that the senator's operation is shifting to "a new Iowa-or-bust strategy."

* It looks like North Carolina will be home to another competitive U.S. Senate race next year: Public Policy Polling found Cal Cunningham (D) with a slight lead over incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis (R), 45% to 43%,

* It looks like Massachusetts will be home to a tough Democratic Senate primary next year, with Rep. Joe Kennedy (D) taking on incumbent Sen. Ed Markey (D). Kennedy will reportedly kick off his statewide campaign this weekend.

read more

Pompeo tries to blame Iran deal for Trump admin's failures

09/19/19 11:20AM

The international nuclear agreement with Iran was working when Donald Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the pact. At the time, the White House said its new approach would be even more effective: at the president's behest, the Trump administration would impose a "maximum pressure" campaign that would keep Iran in line and produce great results for the world.

That approach has clearly failed. By any fair measure, Iran has become far more dangerous and taken steps that appear to be far more provocative. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday recommended that everyone look at reality with their heads tilted:

Pompeo defended this approach to reporters traveling with him to Saudi Arabia, saying, "There is this theme that some suggest that the president's strategy that we allowed isn't working. I would argue just the converse of that. I would argue that what you are seeing here is a direct result of us reversing the enormous failure of the JCPOA."

He was referring to the formal name of the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

This is an amazingly bad argument for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that the JCPOA wasn't failing at all. In fact, Trump knew it wasn't failing because his own team told him in 2017 that it was working exactly as intended -- leading the president to have "a bit of a meltdown."

Trump didn't want to be told the truth; he wanted to be told his false assumptions were correct. Pompeo may want to believe the JCPOA wasn't working, but his bogus assertions don't make it so.

read more

A prospective buyer examines an AR-15 at the "Ready Gunner" gun store In Provo, Utah, June 21, 2016. (Photo by George Frey/Reuters)

White House appears weary of Trump administration's gun plan

09/19/19 10:50AM

The Trump administration has spent the last several weeks assuring people that it's working on a package of gun reforms, the details of which have been kept largely under wraps. With this in mind, it was an important development yesterday when a variety of outlets, including NBC News, reviewed a draft Justice Department proposal that would expand background checks.

The measure appeared to be surprisingly ambitious and very much in line with recent legislative efforts in this area, applying background checks to "all commercial sales, including sales at gun shows."

The plan is being circulated on Capitol Hill, and the gradual unveiling has included a series of meetings between Republican senators, Attorney General Bill Barr, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland. Not surprisingly, GOP lawmakers seem skeptical.

Senate Republicans are treading cautiously on a background checks plan floated by Attorney General William Barr.... GOP lawmakers, for their part, were decidedly noncommittal, with several saying they still wanted to hear what Trump would back.

The NRA was less circumspect.

The National Rifle Association, weakened but still influential among conservatives, immediately dismissed the plan drafted by the Justice Department as a non-starter.

What I found especially interesting, however, was the degree to which the Trump White House appeared weary of the Trump administration's plan. As Slate's Jim Newell explained:

read more

At border, general reminds Trump to stop discussing sensitive info

09/19/19 10:08AM

Donald Trump visited the border yesterday, taking a look at new barriers that replaced old barriers, and bragging about his administration's efforts. As Politico noted, however, the president was so enthusiastic in his boasts that the Republican had to be "gently reprimanded by his hosts in charge of construction."

"One thing we haven't mentioned is technology," Trump said. "They're wired so that we will know if somebody's trying to break through." He then offered the floor to Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, acting head of the Army Corps, who quickly answered: "Sir, there could be some merit in not discussing that."

But Trump wasn't done.

Fortifying the wall even more, he said, was the fact that the steel wall's beams are heat conductors. "It's designed to absorb heat, so it's extremely hot," he said. "You won't be able to touch it. You can fry an egg on that wall."

"Sir, there could be some merit in not discussing that" is one of those great phrases that's emblematic of a larger truth. Trump, as president, is privy to the most sensitive information in the world, but he's still a clumsy amateur lacking a filter.

Hours after the border photo-op, the Washington Post reported on an intelligence community whistleblower who was alarmed about a provocative "promise" Trump made to a foreign leader. The article added, "It raises new questions about the president's handling of sensitive information."

The word in that sentence that stood out for me was "new" -- because my oh my have there been a lot of questions about Trump's handling of sensitive information.

read more

Pentagon points to threats after Trump raids budget for wall

09/19/19 09:20AM

Donald Trump visited California this week for some lucrative fundraising events, but his West Coast trip included a stop yesterday at the border -- where the president was able to visit an area where some old fencing has been replaced with newer fencing. (Mexico, of course, has not and will not pay for any of this, despite the Republican's campaign promises.)

Yesterday, Trump even signed his name to one of the steel slats -- proving that he will sign practically anything put in front of him, including bibles.

Minutes earlier, an administration official rejected the idea that the wall is a "vanity project." The president's autograph on a steel slat suggested otherwise.

During the event, Trump spent a fair amount of time bragging about how impressed he is with the replacement slats and his border efforts, fueled in part by the White House's recent raid on the Pentagon's budget. What Trump did not discuss, however, was the latest warnings from the Defense Department about the president's dubious scheme.

The Washington Post had this striking report yesterday:

The Pentagon warned of dire outcomes unless Congress paid for urgently needed military construction projects nationwide -- the same projects that have now been canceled to fund President Trump's border wall.

The warnings are contained in Defense Department budget requests sent to lawmakers in recent years. They include potentially hazardous living conditions for troops and their families, as well as unsafe schools that would impede learning. In numerous cases, the Defense Department warned that lives would be put at risk if buildings don't meet the military's standards for fire safety or management of explosives.

This comes less than a week after NBC News obtained a report compiled by the U.S. Air Force, which concluded that money diverted away from military construction projects "poses various national security risks for the U.S. armed forces."

read more

In this Oct. 5, 2017 file photo, Department of Homeland Security personnel deliver supplies to Santa Ana community residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Guayama, Puerto Rico.

FEMA debacle becomes latest vetting failure for Team Trump

09/19/19 08:40AM

The Department of Homeland Security is currently being led by an acting secretary, an acting deputy secretary, an acting general counsel, an acting under secretary for management, an acting CBP commissioner, an acting ICE director, an acting USCIS director, and an acting FEMA administrator. For nearly all of these posts, Donald Trump hasn't even nominated anyone for the positions.

At least, however, the White House has a nominee to lead FEMA. Actually, wait, that's no longer true.

The White House will pull the nomination of Jeffrey Byard to be the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency after a federal inquiry into a possible barroom altercation involving Mr. Byard prompted concern in Congress and the White House, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

As Rachel noted at the top of last night's show, all has not been well at FEMA of late. One key official has been caught up in a bribery scandal, and we learned soon after that her deputy was caught up in an entirely different scandal. The most recent FEMA administrator, Brock Long, was investigated for misusing public funds and resigned from his post under a cloud of controversy.

It was against this backdrop that Trump tapped Jeffrey Byard to lead FEMA, though his nomination quickly ran into trouble, and the White House made no real effort to defend him. There's an official explanation for Byard's withdrawal from consideration, though there's ample reason to be skeptical of the administration's line.

Maybe if Team Trump had vetted Byard before the president nominated him to lead FEMA, this could've been avoided, but the Trump White House can be defined in large part by its staggering ineptitude in this area.

Just two months ago, Trump announced that Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), his choice to serve as the new director of National Intelligence, had also withdrawn from consideration after getting caught up in a series of controversies that could've been avoided if the White House had examined his background.

In the immediate aftermath of the fiasco, a reporter asked the president, "What does this say about the White House's vetting process?"

read more

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump listens to his mobile phone during a lunch stop, Feb. 18, 2016, in North Charleston, S.C. (Photo by Matt Rourke/AP)

Trump reportedly implicated in intel whistleblower scandal

09/19/19 08:00AM

The basic elements of the story looked quite serious, despite its many gaps. On Friday night, we learned that someone within the U.S. intelligence community sent a complaint to the intelligence community's inspector general, and though we knew effectively nothing about the nature of the complaint, the IG reviewed it and found it credible.

Just as importantly, the issue was considered a matter of "urgent concern."

The matter was brought to the attention of acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who, by law, was supposed to alert the congressional Intelligence committees. Instead, Maguire contacted the Justice Department, at which point  Trump administration officials decided to withhold the information from lawmakers, legal disclosure requirements notwithstanding.

As you probably saw Rachel explain on last night's show, the Washington Post has advanced our understanding of the burgeoning scandal in critically important ways.

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump's communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump's interaction with the foreign leader included a "promise" that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Core elements of the Post's reporting have been corroborated by other news organizations, including NBC News.

At this point, let's take stock of what we know and what we don't.

read more

Wednesday's Mini-Report, 9.18.19

09/18/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Israel: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday canceled a visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week amid political uncertainty in Israel, where he appeared to fall short of a government majority in national elections."

* More provocative rhetoric: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday accused Iran of perpetrating an 'act of war' after weekend strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, saying the attack had the 'fingerprints of the Ayatollah.'"

* In related news: "President Donald Trump on Wednesday pledged to 'substantially increase' sanctions on Iran as tensions in the Middle East continue to rise following an attack on a Saudi oil field."

* This did not satisfy the White House: "The Federal Reserve cut its benchmark lending rate by one-quarter of a point on Wednesday, the second time this year it has reduced rates in the face of a weakening global economy."

* When Lindsey Graham annoys his ally in the Oval Office: "President Trump engaged in a long-distance debate over Iran with one of his closest allies on Tuesday as Republicans sought to influence the administration's response to the attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia over the weekend."

* Inexcusable: "Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said Wednesday that President Donald Trump had put her in danger by retweeting a video of her dancing with a description that falsely claimed it showed her celebrating on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks."

* The risks of deregulation: "The Trump administration will allow pork plants to reduce the number of Department of Agriculture line inspectors assigned to them and run their slaughter lines without any speed limit under a new rule intended to modernize an antiquated inspection system. But the changes have alarmed consumer advocates who believe the rule will make food less safe and endanger workers."

read more

Travel During July 4th Holiday Weekend Expected To Be Heavy

Trump scraps California's right to set its own emissions standards

09/18/19 12:50PM

For many years, the Republican Party touted federalist principles that stressed the importance of state control. The underlying idea is straightforward: the government that's closer to the people will be more responsive to the public's needs and interests.

There are about 1,000 good examples of GOP officials discarding these principles when it suits the party's purposes. As of this morning, there are about 1,001.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday barred California from setting its own vehicle emissions standards, kicking off a battle that is likely to last well beyond the 2020 presidential election.

"The Trump Administration is revoking California's Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER," Trump tweeted Wednesday morning, noting that the move will lead to "older, highly polluting cars" being replaced by "new, extremely environmentally friendly cars."

If you're new to this story, let's review how we got here because it's quite a story.

To address the climate crisis, the Obama administration created tough fuel-efficiency standards for the auto industry, to be phased in gradually. Manufacturers, not surprisingly, weren't thrilled, but there was a broad realization that the policy, in conjunction with a series of related efforts, would make a positive difference.

Then Donald Trump got elected. Last summer, the Republican White House announced plans to roll back the tougher standards, making it easier for the automotive industry to sell less efficient vehicles that pollute more.

The president assumed he was helping the industry at the expense of the environment -- a trade-off Trump was happy to make since he rejects climate science anyway. What the White House didn't anticipate was the fact that auto manufacturers concluded that Trump's anti-climate plans went too far. In fact, in early June, most of the industry urged the administration to change course, because its plan would produce "untenable" instability.

Why? Because Trump's plan to gut pollution safeguards was so drastic that many states announced plans to enforce stricter emissions standards on their own. That included California -- home to the nation's largest consumer base.

The result was a mess: car manufacturers, which had already begun taking steps to comply with the Obama-era policy, faced the prospect of having to make different vehicles to sell in different parts of the country. Not surprisingly, no one saw that as a sustainable business model.

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