Michael Schmidt, reporter for the New York Times, talks with Steve Kornacki about the contents of the newly released Hillary Clinton e-mails from personal server during her time as secretary of state, and the confusing redactions by the State Department. watch
* More on this on the show tonight: "The State Department has released over 800 pages of emails sent and received on Hillary Clinton's private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State."
* Clinton responds: "After the event, Clinton, took questions from the press for the second time this week. She defended her use of private emails after being asked by NBC's Andrea Mitchell. 'All of the information in the emails has handled appropriately,' she replied, adding that she was glad the emails are coming out. 'I want people to be able to see all of them.'"
* A dash of reality: "Conspiracy-minded conservatives, be warned: The trove of Clinton emails don't prove much about her culpability for the infamous 9/11 anniversary attacks."
* No rush: "Janet L. Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairwoman, said on Friday that she still expected the Fed to start raising its benchmark interest rate later this year."
* Refugio oil spill: "Officials at the company that owns the pipe that ruptured and spilled up to 105,000 gallons of heavy crude in Santa Barbara County said Friday they will not appeal a federal order to take corrective steps."
* California's water crisis: "California water regulators have accepted an unprecedented proposal from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta farmers to voluntarily cut water use by 25% -- or fallow a quarter of their cropland -- in an effort to avoid harsher, government-imposed cuts."
* A historic opportunity: "Irish citizens in places as far-flung as Australia and California were flying back to their home country on Friday to cast ballots in a referendum that could make Ireland the first country to adopt same-sex marriage by a popular vote."
* What was he thinking? "To the right stands former Virginia delegate Joe Morrissey, 57, a Democrat running for a Virginia state Senate seat as an Independent after Democratic Party officials rejected his attempt to seek office. Joining Morrissey are his 19-year-old receptionist, Myrna Pride, and their 9-week-old son Chase, a child Morrissey publicly acknowledged as his son for the first time Wednesday."
Perhaps more than any member of Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is preoccupied with fear. And the South Carolina Republican regularly paints a terrifying picture for Americans -- "The world is literally about to blow up" -- apparently because Graham wants you to be preoccupied with fear, too.
"We have never seen more threats against our nation and its citizens than we do today."
Ahistorical nonsense like this is a little too common, particular from his wing of the party. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) loves to tell anyone who'll listen that there's "greater turmoil" in the world now than at any time "in my lifetime."
McCain's lifetime includes the entirety of World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War.
And perhaps that's the root of the problem. I don't think Graham and McCain are being disingenuous -- their state of near-panic about national security seems sincere -- but I do think their understanding of history is alarmingly poor.
It may be a while before the overall number of self-identified American liberals catch up to American conservatives, but a new Gallup report points to unseen ideological parity on social issues.
Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999. [...]
The broad trend has been toward a shrinking conservative advantage, although that was temporarily interrupted during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. Since then, the conservative advantage continued to diminish until it was wiped out this year.
Among Republican voters, there hasn't been much of a change over the last decade, and the views espoused by the party's voters in 2015 are practically identical to the Gallup results from 2001.
But among Democrats, there's been a revolution of sorts. In 2011, a plurality of Dems described their views on social issues as "moderate," while only a third considered themselves "liberal." This year, however, those totals have reversed -- and then some. Now, a 53% majority of Democrats are social liberals, while about a third are moderates.
So, for the left, that's the good news. What's the bad news? Americans' views on economic issues. From the Gallup report:
When an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found earlier this year that a plurality of Republican voters believe GOP lawmakers compromise too much with President Obama, it seemed hard to believe. Congressional Republicans have refused to work with the Democratic White House on anything, literally since Day One. Maybe respondents didn't understand the question?
No, that's not it. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent noted yesterday that rank-and-file Republicans just want as much confrontation as humanly possible. The latest report from the Pew Research Center makes this clear:
The survey finds deep differences in how Republicans and Democrats want President Obama and GOP leaders to deal with issues. Fully 75% of Republicans want GOP leaders to challenge Obama more often; just 15% say they are handling relations with the president about right and 7% say GOP leaders should go along with Obama more often.
Fewer Democrats (49%) want Obama to challenge Republicans more often; 33% say he is handling this about right while 11% want him to go along with GOP leaders more often.
That's quite a bit of asymmetry. In the overall population, the number of Americans who want GOP lawmakers to go along more with the White House is roughly identical to the number of Americans who want Republicans to "challenge" the president more often.
But among GOP voters, the results are lopsided. This actually explains a lot.
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) began selling "Filibuster Starter Packs" to supporters yesterday for $30, raising questions about the sincerity of his 10-hour stunt on the Senate floor this week.
* Rick Santorum is not at all pleased with Fox News' debate criteria, which may exclude him from participating. The former senator noted, among other things, that national polling is a poor standard -- four years ago, he won the Iowa caucuses despite poor showings in national polls.
* Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) presidential campaign now has four endorsements from Republican members of Congress, and all four are from the senator's adopted home state. Among the latest supporters announced yesterday: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
* While several Republican presidential candidates have struggled of late to finesse their position on the war in Iraq, retired right-wing neurosurgeon Ben Carson took a position that breaks with GOP orthodoxy: "I've said definitively that I was never in favor of going into Iraq."
* Scott Walker told an audience yesterday that Americans have reason to fear immigrants: "There's a good number from Indonesia, there are from Morocco, and other places around the world, many of whom aren't looking for work in the United States. They've got other motives and we need to wake up to that."
* In a bit of a surprise, Jeb Bush seemed to suggest at a campaign event yesterday that border security is better under President Obama than it was during his brother's tenure.
Jeb Bush caused a bit of a stir last week, telling an audience that he intends to destroy the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with a "consumer-driven" system, part of which includes his new Apple Watch.
"On this device in five years will be applications that will allow me to manage my health care in ways that five years ago were not even possible," he said. "I'll have the ability, someone will, you know, because of my blood sugar, there'll be a wireless, there'll be, someone will send me a signal.... We'll be able to guide our own health care decisions in a way that will make us healthy."
"We're on the verge of a revolution in this regard, where we'll be able to know all sorts of things with, you know, devices like this. I got beat up by the left because I showed my, you know, Apple Phone -- this device will have the ability to measure your sugar content, to measure your heartbeat, to measure whether you're taking your drugs in the proper way. And you'll be able to wirelessly send text messages to your health care provider or to your loved one, or whatever, so that you can get back on track."
It seems the former governor isn't entirely clear on why he "got beat up."
A couple of years ago, President Obama attended a fundraiser with some wealthy donors. The Republican National Committee said it was "the definition of hypocrisy" for the president to "run against" the wealthy while seeking campaign contributions from wealthy contributors.
The trouble, of course, is that this isn't the "the definition of hypocrisy" at all. Having a policy agenda that focuses on lifting up working families, while asking more from the very wealthy, does not preclude seeking contributions from those who also support that agenda.
This week, Hillary Clinton was accused of being "hypocritical" for criticizing the existing campaign-finance system, even while raising money within that system. But again, that's not what "hypocrisy" means -- there is no contradiction when a candidate plays by the rules while hoping to someday change those rules.
And today, it's apparently Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mas.) turn. Politicoreported:
Elizabeth Warren is trying to kill President Barack Obama's trade agenda by raising the specter that foreign companies could use an investor-friendly arbitration system to circumvent the U.S. court system.
But she hasn't discussed her own role 15 years ago in the arbitration system she opposes -- as a paid expert witness earning as much as $90,000 from the U.S. government.
Once again, this isn't what hypocrisy what means. Vox's Matt Yglesias explained:
If it seems like there's a confab for Republican presidential hopefuls about once a week, it's not your imagination. The series of "cattle calls" is practically endless, including the Southern Republican Leadership Conference that began yesterday in Oklahoma City, drawing much of the GOP field.
Most of the rhetoric was roughly what one might expect, but there was something Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said that stood out for me.
"There's a lot of great people out there who are thinking about, or are currently in the race, for president on the Republican side. Now, there are some people, there are some of those folks, particularly those in Washington, who are really good fighters -- they're fighting the good fight, they're waving the flag, they're carrying the banner -- but they haven't won a whole lot of victories yet.
"And then there's some other folks out there that they have done a really effective job of winning elections -- a lot of friends of mine, governors or former governors who got elected and they got re-elected. They won a lot of elections, but they haven't taken on a lot of those fights.
"I gotta tell you, ladies and gentlemen, part of the reason why I'm even thinking about what I'm thinking about -- we haven't announced anything yet, won't until after the end of June when our state budget is done -- I have yet to see anyone in the field or in the emerging field who's done both."
And that, in a nutshell, is Scott Walker's core 2016 pitch. What's more, it's largely true.
The latest report from the Kaiser Family Foundation offers plenty of good news for those hoping to see the American health care system succeed. For example, a combined 74% of consumers who purchased coverage through an exchange consider their coverage either "good" or "excellent," which is up a couple of points from last year.
This is exactly the kind of numbers proponents of the Affordable Care Act hoped to see. For all the predictions that consumers would avoid the exchanges and hate their ACA-backed coverage, we now see largely the opposite.
But the same survey found that Republicans, many of whom like the coverage they've received through "Obamacare," continue to hate the law anyway. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum thinks this is "crazy" and he raises a fair point.
This isn't a general survey of all Americans. It's a survey specifically of people who don't have group coverage. Most of them (probably more than two-thirds) have actually purchased Obamacare plans and therefore have personal experience with them, but favorability is nonetheless still driven mostly by party ID. You can buy an ACA plan on the marketplace, get a subsidy, and be happy with your plan -- but if you're a Republican you still overwhelmingly hate Obamacare by 74-25 percent.
Folks, that is hardcore.
Agreed. For years, we've seen polls showing Americans expressing general support for the provision that make up the ACA, even if they claim not to like the ACA itself, but this is just a little worse. We're looking at a group of folks who received coverage through the system, like the coverage they received, but still reflexively oppose the law that gave them the coverage they like.
There was quite a bit of attention overnight to Gov. Chris Christie's (R) expletive-laced speech at the annual New Jersey media roast this week, and it's understandable why. We're not generally accustomed to hearing a presidential candidate tell reporters to "clean the s**t out of your ears" and "get the f**k away from me."
But in fairness, the remarks were not intended for the public, and there's an expectation at the roast that speakers are going to use vulgar language. By all accounts, no one at the event was shocked by Christie's use of profanity -- given the event, it would have been more surprising if he didn't deliver an expletive-laced speech.
Far more interesting were the New Jersey Republican's on-the-record comments yesterday in which he characterized himself as some kind of victim. Politicoreported:
Chris Christie says the media owes him an apology over the Bridgegate scandal.
"I do believe there's an absolute bias and a rush to judgment. You all know this, you saw the coverage of me 15 months ago. I was guilty, I had done it," Christie said on CNBC Thursday morning. "Now we're 15 months later, where are the apologies pouring in? Not one thing I said the day after the bridge situation has been proven wrong."
He added that news coverage of his scandal was too intense as compared to reporting on the IRS. "At the time Bridgegate was outgunning, six or seven to one the IRS scandal," Christie said.
The editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger said this week, in reference to a separate matter, that the governor seems to have "lost his marbles." After seeing his comments yesterday, the criticism seems apt -- Christie's whining about his own scandal is simply bonkers.
Jeb Bush seems to realize how awkward his position is in the 2016 race. He's the brother of a failed president, which creates some understandable resistance to his candidacy, and which puts some pressure on the Florida Republican to distance himself and his brethren -- even as he surrounds himself with his brother's staff and espouses his brother's ideas.
For the most part, the former governor has tried to carefully thread a needle, passively acknowledging that "mistakes were made" during the Bush/Cheney era, even while refusing to say who made the mistakes or what they were.
It was an unsustainable posture, and as msnbc's Benjy Sarlin reported, Jeb Bush finally tried a different course while campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday.
Bush was responding to a question from a voter at sports bar in Concord, who asked – in light of his reluctance to criticize the last Republican president on Iraq last week – for "an example of an issue where there is big space" between the two siblings.
"Are there differences? Yeah, sure," Bush replied. "I think in Washington during my brother's time Republicans spent too much money."
The former governor added, in reference to his brother, "I think he could have used the veto power, he didn't have line item veto power, but he could have brought budget discipline to Washington, DC. Now, that seems kind of quaint right now given the fact that after he left, budget deficits and spending just went up astronomically, but having constraints on spending across the board during this time would have been a good thing."
It's important to note that when it comes to the fiscal details, Jeb Bush is badly confused. After George W. Bush left office, budget deficits got smaller, not bigger, and federal spending has increased slower, not faster. The fact that Jeb Bush has the entire picture completely backwards is a little unsettling -- these are supposed to be basic details that a credible national candidate understands.
Tyler Hayden, news editor for the Santa Barbara Independent, talks with Rachel Maddow about locals trying to clean the beaches of oil after a weak official response, and new details about the lack of an automatic shut-off on this one pipeline. watch
Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about the spread of ISIS in Syria, including to the ancient city of Palmyra, and the variety of ways that ISIS raises money to support its brutal, destructive advance. watch
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.
Rachel Maddow LIVE
Speak out! Make your voice heard by tagging your posts #maddow