The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM


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

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 6/26/2019
E.g., 6/26/2019
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks at the Growth and Opportunity Party, at the Iowa State Fair Oct. 31, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo by Steve Pope/Getty)

GOP senators turn their attention to Clinton email probe

04/17/19 09:20AM

Last summer, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) not only expressed confidence in the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections, he also boasted about what he'd do if elevated to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Near the top of the senator's list of priorities: the Hillary Clinton email probe.

Graham wasn't kidding. Indeed, we were reminded yesterday that Graham is both focused on the Clinton email probe and recruiting some friends for his endeavor.

A trio of top Republican senators are doubling down on their demand for the Justice Department to hand over information on the handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- the chairmen of the Judiciary, Homeland Security and Finance committees, respectively -- sent a letter Tuesday to Attorney General William Barr arguing that now that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe has wrapped up, the department should hand over the requested documents.

It's possible the GOP senators have forgotten this pesky detail, but the Justice Department inspector general's office already examined the probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server and it discredited the conspiracy theories.

As the New York Times' David Leonhardt explained last year, "Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general's report puts it, 'the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.'"

There was no pro-Clinton bias. As Rachel explained on the show 10 months ago, the Justice Department's exhaustive review determined that the reason Clinton wasn't charged was because there simply wasn't reason to charge her. The investigation into her emails was handled properly.

And yet, there are Graham, Johnson, and Grassley, on the eve of the Mueller report's release, turning their attention once more to partisan conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton and emails, raising questions that have already been answered.

Is it any wonder Democratic senators are laughing at them?

read more

During a campaign rally Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reads a statement made by Michelle Fields, on March 29, 2016 in Janesville, Wis. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty)

Trump on 2020 Democratic candidates: 'May God Rest Their Soul'

04/17/19 08:40AM

In recent months, Donald Trump has periodically weighed in on the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, generally to dismiss the field of candidates and express confidence in his re-election. Occasionally, however, the president directs his attention to specific individuals.

Trump has, for example, invested an unsettling amount of energy into commenting on Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) ancestry. More recently, the president took an interest in former Rep. Beto O'Rourke's (D-Texas) hand gestures.

Last night, Trump turned his attention to the candidates at the top of the latest polls, initially mocking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over revelations from the senator's newly disclosed tax returns. Given that the president and his lawyers are fighting desperately to keep Trump's tax returns hidden from the public, it's a curious subject for the Republican to bring up unprompted.

But the Pundit in Chief soon after added some related thoughts on the 2020 campaign.

"I believe it will be Crazy Bernie Sanders vs. Sleepy Joe Biden as the two finalists to run against maybe the best Economy in the history of our Country (and MANY other great things)! I look forward to facing whoever it may be. May God Rest Their Soul!"

Um, what?

read more

Lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a press conference after appearing in court to call for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against video game giant Activision in Los Angeles, Calif., Oct. 16, 2014. (Photo by Damian Dovarganes/AP)

If the Mueller report exonerates Trump, why write a 'counter-report'?

04/17/19 08:00AM

If all goes according to plan, Attorney General Bill Barr's office will release a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings tomorrow morning, which should shed some additional light on the Russia scandal and Donald Trump's relation to it.

Soon after, however, we may also see a separate report from the president's defense attorneys. The Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago:

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have for months been preparing a counter-report. It is now 140 pages long, but lawyers want to whittle it down to about 50, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in an interview.

Mr. Giuliani said Mr. Trump's lawyers expect the bulk of their report to focus on the topic of obstruction of justice and plan to scrap most of the material on collusion.

How attorneys could spend months writing a response to a report they have not seen -- and up until recently, did not exist -- is not at all clear.

But even putting that aside, there are two principal areas of concern. First, Giuliani has struggled for quite a while when describing the length of his purported counter-report.

Last August, Giuliani said he and his team had prepared a counter-report to Muller's findings that was "quite voluminous." Giuliani added at the time, "The first half of it is 58 pages, and second half isn't done yet." A month later, Giuliani said his counter-report was 45 pages and growing. Over the weekend, it was 140 pages and shrinking. Yesterday, it was "34 or 35" pages.

The former mayor sounds a bit like a student who hasn't yet started a term paper, but who's eager to convince his professor the work is nearly complete.

But as amusing as it's been to watch Giuliani dissemble over the course of several months, there's an overarching question that Team Trump hasn't yet addressed: if the Mueller report exonerates the president, why in the world would his lawyers feel the need to release a counter-report at all?

read more

Tuesday's Mini-Report, 4.16.19

04/16/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* I can't wait to see how the bank responds: "Two House committees have issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions for information on President Donald Trump's finances. The chairs of the House Intelligence and Financial Services committees said in statements to NBC News on Tuesday that they are working in tandem to probe the president's financial ties."

* Hmm: "The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia argued in a court filing Monday that the Washington Post's request to release sealed and redacted records related to Paul Manafort's case should be rejected because of the existence of several 'ongoing investigations.'"

* A sensible reversal: "Immigration officials last week deported the spouse of a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan in 2010, leaving the couple's 12-year-daughter in Phoenix, then abruptly reversed its decision on Monday when the deported man was allowed to return to the U.S."

* More on this story tomorrow: "Three House Democratic chairmen on Monday launched a probe into reports that the White House pressured immigration enforcement officials to release migrants into the districts of political adversaries."

* This controversy hasn't gone away: "Rep. David Schweikert is running up big legal bills as the House Ethics Committee investigates the Arizona Republican's dealings with his former top aide and other employees."

* Poorly designed tax policy: "The flood of fiscal stimulus from the Republican tax cut bill is about to slow to a trickle.... The juice it was supposed to inject in the economy will likely soon run out, just in time for the presidential election year. The fiscal stimulus of the tax bill will likely continue this year, but once 2020 arrives, many economists say the short-term growth effects will probably run out."

read more

Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, listens to a question during a Bloomberg Politics interview in Des Moines, Ia., Feb. 1, 2016. (Photo by Bloomberg/Getty)

Senate Republican on ACA: 'You got to look at it as positive'

04/16/19 12:44PM

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, Senate Republicans should take the lead on crafting the GOP's alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Evidently, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee isn't eager to help in the endeavor.

Even Republicans who furiously fought the creation of the law and won elections with the mantra of repeal and replace speak favorably of President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.

"Quite obviously, more people have health insurance than would otherwise have it, so you got to look at it as positive," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a recent interview.

At a certain level, comments like these may seem so anodyne, they're hardly notable. Any responsible assessment of the Affordable Care Act and its effects would conclude that it obviously deserves to be seen in a positive light.

But in Republican politics over the last decade, rhetoric like Grassley's has been verboten. The only acceptable labels for "Obamacare" in GOP circles are words like "failure," "disaster," and attacks not suitable for publication on family websites like this one. To concede that the Affordable Care Act has helped millions, and has had a positive impact on the country, is to betray the Republican Party's goals and principles.

Indeed, Iowa's senior senator is an observer of particular relevance. Those who followed the debate over health-care reform closely may recall that by the fall of 2009, “no Republican received more TLC from Barack Obama” than Chuck Grassley. The Democratic president and his team reached out to him constantly, hoping that he was the kind of senator who would work in good faith towards bipartisan solutions.

He was not. While Grassley claimed to be serious about bipartisan solutions on health care reform, he was also, at the same time, making fundraising appeals urging donors to send him cash to help him “defeat Obama-care.” Grassley proceeded to talk up “death panel” garbage and tout Glenn Beck’s book.

By August 2009, Grassley told MSNBC that he was negotiating with the White House on a health care compromise, which Grassley was prepared to vote against, even if it included everything he asked for.

In the years that followed, the conservative Iowan did what hundreds of other GOP lawmakers did: Grassley voted to repeal the reform law -- in whole or in part -- several times.

And yet, here we are.

read more

Tuesday's Campaign Round-Up, 4.16.19

04/16/19 12:00PM

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

* Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) yesterday unveiled a new public-land-use plan that includes, among other things, an executive order that would impose "a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands."

* Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), meanwhile, unveiled elements of his tax plan yesterday, including an expansion of existing Earned Income Tax Credit.

* A new national poll from Emerson found Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leading the Democratic presidential field with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.) at 24%. A month ago, Emerson found the two men tied at 26%. No other candidate reached double digits, though South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) came close.

* Speaking of Sanders, the Vermont senator released a decade's worth of tax returns yesterday. Around the same time, Beto O'Rourke did the same thing.

* With the North Carolina Republican Party facing turmoil and scandal, Dallas Woodhouse is stepping down in June as the state GOP chair.

* There's a very interesting new Mason-Dixon poll out of Alabama, where Sen. Doug Jones (D) has a 45% approval rating, though 50% of voters are prepared to replace him during his re-election bid next year. That said, the top choice among Alabama Republicans for that Senate race is none other than former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R).

read more

Stephen Moore of The Heritage Foundation is interviewed by CQ in his Washington office, August 31, 2016.

Trump's Federal Reserve pick: 'I'm not even a big believer in democracy'

04/16/19 11:00AM

Stephen Moore's total lack of qualifications, expertise, and independence for the Federal Reserve has been well documented, though Donald Trump apparently wants him on the Board of Governors anyway. But as CNN reported, we're not done learning about the Republican pundit's background.

Stephen Moore, who President Donald Trump announced last month as his nominee for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, has a history of advocating self-described "radical" views on the economy and government.

In speeches and radio interviews reviewed by CNN's KFile, Moore advocated for eliminating the corporate and federal income taxes entirely, calling the 16th Amendment that created the income tax the "most evil" law passed in the 20th century.

Among other things, Moore has called for the elimination of several federal cabinet agencies, argued that there's no need for a minimum wage, and condemned Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" that should be privatized.

The same CNN report pointed to comments Stephen Moore told filmmaker Michael Moore in 2009, in which the Republican said, "Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I'm not even a big believer in democracy."

In 2015, meanwhile, Moore suggested the Federal Reserve shouldn't exist.

Remember, as far as GOP senators are concerned, Stephen Moore is the better of the president's two choices for the Federal Reserve board.

read more

U.S. Attorney General nominee William Barr testifies at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee January 15, 2019 in Washington, DC.

Barr's credibility faces new questions ahead of Mueller report's release

04/16/19 10:15AM

It's been 25 days since Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his findings to Attorney General Bill Barr, and pretty much all we know about that final report comes from Donald Trump's handpicked AG. Barr's characterization of the document -- he included some fragments, but no complete sentences from Mueller's report -- have served as the basis for Republican celebrations, a White House victory lap, and taunts from skeptics of the Russia scandal.

With a redacted version of the report scheduled to be released in about 48 hours, we'll get a better sense of whether those pro-Trump cheers had merit, but in the meantime, there's a question that lingers over the debate: why exactly are so many so quick to take Barr's assessment at face value?

The president's allied attorney general has faced a series of legitimate questions about his credibility, stemming from years of controversies, his unsolicited memo criticizing the Mueller investigation, and more recently, his willingness to endorse a Trump conspiracy theory.

Yesterday, a new area of concern came to light. NYU law professor Ryan Goodman wrote at Just Security:

On Friday the thirteenth October 1989, by happenstance the same day as the "Black Friday" market crash, news leaked of a legal memo authored by William Barr. He was then serving as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It is highly uncommon for any OLC memo to make headlines. This one did because it was issued in "unusual secrecy" and concluded that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries without the consent of the foreign state. The headline also noted the implication of the legal opinion at that moment in time. It appeared to pave the way for abducting Panama's leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.

Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that "summarizes the principal conclusions." Sound familiar?

Goodman's piece is worth reading in its entirety, but to briefly summarize, Barr wrote a summary of an important document for lawmakers, and a few years later, it became obvious that his account omitted key conclusions from the original document.

In effect, Barr took a major legal report, used his discretion to remove relevant portions, and told lawmakers what he wanted them to know.

read more

History mandates presidential candidates release tax returns, but not how many

Trump's lawyers scramble to keep his tax returns hidden from view

04/16/19 09:20AM

Last week, Donald Trump hired a new group of lawyers to do one very specific thing: keep the president's tax returns secret. Yesterday, those attorneys sent a letter to the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, urging administration officials to look past the letter of the law.

President Trump's personal lawyer on Monday urged the Treasury Department not to hand over Mr. Trump's tax returns to House Democrats, warning that releasing the documents to lawmakers he accused of having a "radical view of unchecked congressional power" would turn the Internal Revenue Service into a political weapon. [...]

Mr. Trump's lawyer, William S. Consovoy, said on Monday that the legal rationale behind [House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal's] dismissal of the Treasury Department's concerns was wrong.

As regular readers know, Richard Neal, exercising his authority under the law, formally told the Treasury Department two weeks ago that he's demanding access to the president's tax returns. The Massachusetts Democrat did so under a law that says the Treasury "shall furnish" the tax materials in response to a formal request from one of a handful of congressional lawmakers, including himself.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said in a written statement last week, "How many lawyers and how much time does it take for [Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin] to understand that 'shall' means 'shall'?"

And yet, yesterday, Trump's new private attorney told the Treasury that those pointing to the letter of the law are not making "a serious legal argument."

The correspondence added that "no one actually believes" Richard Neal is interested in legitimate congressional oversight. To bolster the point, the president's lawyer pointed to ... wait for it ... quotes from congressional Republicans.

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