It was hardly the most dramatic moment of the showdown, but in the second presidential debate this year, Donald Trump not only boasted about all of the millions of dollars he was giving his campaign, he also challenged Hillary Clinton to follow his lead.
"I'm not taking all of this big money from all of these corporations like she is doing," Trump said, while bragging about his $100 million investment in his candidacy. The Republican added, "Why don't you put $10 or $20 or $25 or $30 million into your campaign.... It would really be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren't you putting some money in? You have a lot of it."
As it turns out, Clinton could've turned this question around on Trump. The Associated Press reported this morning:
Donald Trump has repeated it so much it's almost part of his stump speech: He's going to put $100 million of his own money into his campaign before Election Day. But new filings show he's got a long way to go if he's going to hit that mark.
The Republican presidential nominee has given a mere $33,000 to his campaign this month.
To borrow a line, why aren't you putting some money in, Donald? You have a lot of it.
In fairness, the GOP nominee, a self-professed billionaire, has invested roughly $56.1 million of his own money into the campaign, but (a) that's far short of his stated commitment; (b) most of that money was contributed during the Republican presidential primaries; and (c) roughly $9 million of that total ended up going to Trump's family and business enterprises.
And while Trump believes it would be "nice" for Clinton to spent tens of millions of her own dollars on her general-election candidacy, the AP report added that Trump's donations to himself have "slowed to about $2 million each month" during the general election.
In the first half of October -- the point at which we might expect the Republican to be going all out -- Trump's financial support was just $33,000. read more
Arguably no one in Republican politics is facing as severe a dilemma as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). While plenty of GOP officeholders have struggled with questions about Donald Trump, the far-right Floridian is on record calling Trump a "con man," a "lunatic," and a dangerous "liar" who cannot be trusted with the nation's nuclear arsenal. And yet, Rubio is endorsing Trump anyway, even while standing by his previous criticisms.
The result is a dynamic that's proving to be awkward for the failed presidential candidate, who's now running for a Senate seat he said he didn't want. Not only are Democrats hammering Rubio for his unprincipled partisanship, the Republican lawmaker is also facing questions he doesn't know how to answer. The Huffington Postreported last night:
As CNN's Manu Raju reported, Rubio evaded several questions while speaking with reporters in Naples, Florida. When asked if he believes Trump will "keep the country safe," Rubio dodged, saying "the military is what keeps us safe and we have to rebuild our military."
And when asked whether he thinks his children can look up to the GOP nominee, Rubio ― who is running for re-election ― turned the question to his own race. "Most Americans, people look at this and say, 'These are not ideal choices.'" he said. "That's why one of the reasons I ran for Senate, because I know that no matter who wins, we're going to have to have a strong Senate."
It's answers like that lead Democrats to believe Rubio might be beatable after all. read more
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Donald Trump yesterday if he believes public-opinion polls are "rigged." The Republican candidate didn't hesitate, saying, "I have no doubt about it."
From there, I more or less assumed the GOP nominee would deliver a confused rant about oversampling, but Trump instead went in a very different direction. "I won the third debate easily," he insisted. "It wasn't even a contest and everybody had me winning. Every poll had me winning, big league. And then CNN did a poll and they had me losing somewhat and I said, 'How did that happen I wonder.'"
I'll confess, this was the first time in a while I literally laughed at a Trump quote. He thinks he won the debate; every independent, scientific poll found that the public thought the opposite. Therefore, in Trump's mind, it's obvious the polls themselves are part of a scheme cooked up by nefarious forces conspiring against him.
If Trump perceived reality one way, how could there possibly be evidence of others perceiving reality a different way? The discrepancy is all the evidence the Republican candidate needs as the basis for a conspiracy theory.
As the interview continued, Trump complained that in 2005, when he made controversial comments about sexual assault, his "Access Hollywood" microphone "was not supposed to be on." It led to this striking exchange:
O'REILLY: You think it was illegal, what they did, putting that tape out?
TRUMP: Oh, absolutely. No, that was a private locker -- you know, that was a private dressing room. Yeah, that was certainly --
O'REILLY: Are you going to take any action after the election against NBC?
TRUMP: Well, you'll see. You will see.... You're going to see after the election.... I mean, you know, we're going to find out soon enough. I will tell you.
Just so we're clear, from Trump's perspective, when Russia steals emails in the hopes of influencing America's presidential election, that's fantastic. But as far as he's concerned, when a 2005 recording of Trump reaches the public, that's "illegal." read more
The irony is, Illinois Democrats hoped to use last night's Senate debate to put Sen. Mark Kirk (R) on the defensive on the issue of race. In August, the Republican incumbent lashed out at President Obama, arguing that he's "acting like the Drug Dealer in Chief" -- the latest in a series of racial comments from the senator -- and the Democratic Party of Illinois issued a press statement yesterday afternoon, pushing Kirk to apologize at the debate.
What Dems couldn't have anticipated was Kirk making their jobs much easier.
Not only did the GOP senator decline to apologize for his racially charged rhetoric towards the president, Kirk managed to make matters much worse with some racially charged rhetoric towards his opponent.
Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk is again under fire for making racially-charged comments, this time for questioning the military service of his Democratic opponent's family.
During Thursday night's debate between Kirk and challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth, Duckworth spoke about her desire to be in the Senate as a voice of reason and referenced her family's history of service, saying, "My family has served this nation in uniform, going back to the Revolution. I'm a daughter of the American Revolution. I've bled for this nation. But I still want to be there in the Senate when the drums of war sound. Because people are quick to sound the drums of war, and I want to be there to say this is what it costs, this is what you're asking us to do.... Families like mine are the ones that bleed first."
Kirk responded: "I had forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington."
I've seen the video, which in some ways makes matters worse. Note that Kirk's superfluous sarcasm, made not as part of some heated exchange, but just blurted out for no reason.
Indeed, that's the part of the story that I find hardest to wrap my head around. Duckworth, a decorated combat veteran, was born in Thailand to a Thai mother of Chinese descent, who also has an American father -- an American marine who traced his lineage back to the American Revolution.
Why in the world would Kirk, who's been caught exaggerating his own service record, find it necessary to say, "I had forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington"? How does it help his campaign to make racially charged comments about his opponent's family? read more
Perhaps Republicans were hoping the last big economic report before Election Day would help their electoral prospects, giving them a new talking point in the campaign's closing days. If so, they probably won't be pleased this morning.
The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter at the fastest pace in two and a half years, aided by a surge in exports and a rebound in the size of inventories companies keep on hand for sale.
The government said gross domestic product, the official scorecard for the economy, expanded at a 2.9% annual clip from July through September. That's a marked improvement from the first half of the year when the U.S. grew just barely over 1%.
The full report from the Commerce Department is online here.
There are concerns, of course, that the positive news on economic growth may encourage the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, but in the short term, there are more immediate electoral considerations.
Bad news on the GDP front might have given Republicans some rhetorical ammunition as Election Day draws closer. Steady growth, however, does the opposite, denying Donald Trump and his GOP allies a rationale for a radical change in direction. read more
This was one of those rare cases in which the alleged crimes played out on television. In January, a group of well-armed militants drove to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, seized control of its headquarters, and posted guards in camouflage outside. As we reported at the time, the militia members, led in part by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, controversial rancher Cliven Bundy's sons, said they were willing to kill and be killed if necessary in their effort to have federal land turned over to local authorities.
None of this is in dispute. We all saw what happened. No one has contested these basic details.
Not surprisingly, federal officials weren't willing to meet the militants' demands, and nearly six weeks after the controversy erupted, the militia members exited the wildlife refuge, and Ammon and Ryan Bundy, among others, were taken into custody and charged with a variety of crimes.
Yesterday, we learned that the punishment for well-armed men taking over a federal building that doesn't belong to them is ... nothing.
The leaders of an armed group who seized a national wildlife refuge in rural Oregon were acquitted Thursday in the 41-day occupation that brought new attention to a long-running dispute over control of federal lands in the U.S. West.
A jury found brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy not guilty of possessing a firearm in a federal facility and conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland where the trial took place.
The federal prosecutor in the case told jurors during his closing argument, "Ladies and gentlemen, this case is not a whodunit." That was true: we know exactly who seized control of the federal building. We know why. We know when and how. We know that an FBI agent testified during trial that, after the armed occupation ended, officials found 16,636 live rounds and nearly 1,700 spent casings in the facility.
The Bundys nevertheless said their armed takeover was an act of civil disobedience, and jurors decided they were not guilty.
And as unexpected as this outcome was, the scene in the courtroom after the acquittal was every bit as strange. read more
Ben Ginsberg, former RNC general counsel, talks with Rachel Maddow about the consent decree that prevents the RNC from engaging in racially charged poll watching and why that means keeping distance from the Trump campaign. watch
Vaughn Hillyard, NBC News campaign embed covering Gov. Mike Pence, talks with Rachel Maddow about the governor's plane sliding off the runway on landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York, and the unnerving pattern of hard landings by the Pence plane. watch
Rachel Maddow shows Mike Pence calling women in the military a "bad idea," and shares previously unreleased audio of Donald Trump criticizing the decision to allow women into the U.S. military, calling it "bedlam." watch
* Mosul: "ISIS militants are reportedly forcing civilians in their self-declared caliphate to relocate to Mosul, in what is likely preparation to use them as human shields ahead of a planned allied assault on the city."
* I believe she's the 12th accuser: "A former Miss Finland has come forward to allege that Donald Trump groped her while she was competing in the 2006 Miss Universe beauty pageant in New York." Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing.
* Another accusation of sexual misconduct: "An Alaska lawyer said Justice Clarence Thomas groped her at a dinner party in 1999, a claim that Thomas said is 'preposterous,' the National Law Journal reported Thursday."
* Quite an indictment: "Federal prosecutors brought charges on Thursday against dozens of people accused of taking part in a massive international crime ring that relied on Indian call centers to bilk thousands of Americans out of more than $300 million."
* Breaking the modern record on clemency: "President Obama granted 98 more commutations to federal inmates Thursday, bringing the total for this year to 688 -- the most commutations ever granted by a president in a single year. In all, he's now shortened the sentences of 872 inmates during his presidency, more than any president since Woodrow Wilson."
* Afghanistan: "The United States military carried out airstrikes on Sunday in eastern Afghanistan aimed at two of Al Qaeda's most senior leaders operating in the country, an attack described as one of the most significant in Afghanistan in several years, the Pentagon announced on Wednesday."
* Dakota Access Pipeline: "Authorities in North Dakota began arresting Dakota Access Pipeline opponents on Thursday afternoon at a protest camp built on private land. Many of the protesters had refused earlier orders to leave. Some prayed in circles while others yelled at advancing members of law enforcement, according to The Associated Press." read more
One of the key elements of Donald Trump's closing messages to voters is that the entire election process is "rigged." He has no proof of an elaborate conspiracy, but the GOP nominee is nevertheless convinced nefarious forces are working against him.
To that end, Trump is urging his followers to not only vote for him, but also to volunteer for his campaign's "poll-monitoring" program. As the Republican candidate sees it, Trump's devotees should travel to areas where the right suspects voter fraud -- invariably, their concerns focus on urban areas where voters tend to be people of color -- and effectively serve as vigilantes on behalf of the GOP presidential ticket, inspecting voting precincts and looking for suspicious voters.
As one Trump voter, responding to the candidate's call, recently explained, "I'll look for ... well, it's called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can't speak American. I'm going to go right up behind them. I'll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I'm not going to do anything illegal. I'm going to make them a little bit nervous."
As Rachel explained at the top of last night's show, this initiative generated an important court filing yesterday from the Democratic National Committee. Bloomberg Politics reported:
In a preemptive strike against what it called a coordinated effort to intimidate voters, the Democratic Party's governing body alleged Wednesday that the Republican National Committee is violating a court order in a case that started 35 years ago.
The RNC is supporting Trump's recruitment of so-called watchers at polling places, which is in breach of consent decrees going back to 1982 that forbid the group from engaging in ballot-security measures, according to a filing in federal court in Newark, New Jersey. The DNC said the watchers are really intended to deter registered voters from casting ballots.
I can appreciate why phrases like "breach of consent decrees" might make this story seem a little dry and complex, but stick with me because this one's going somewhere interesting. As Rachel said on the air last night, "This is a big deal." read more
By most measures, it's too early for Democrats to feel great about the election and for Republicans to feel dread. The presidential race is starting to tighten; control of the Senate is still up for grabs; and while Dems are likely to narrow the GOP advantage in the House, few believe Nancy Pelosi will reclaim the Speaker's gavel in January.
That said, as conditions stand, Democrats generally wouldn't want to change places with their Republican counterparts. As Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week, in reference to Dems, "The math kind of just works for them."
Barring 11th-hour surprises, the New York Times made a compelling case that the fallout of GOP defeats may very well hurt more than the losses themselves, as the party confronts "crucial and onerous decisions they are now beginning to confront."
Do they try to find a way to cooperate with Democrats and get something done after years of stasis in Washington, perhaps as a way to move beyond the Trump phenomenon? Or do they dig in against Democrats and the new president as a bet on a Republican comeback in the 2018 midterm elections, adopting a noncooperative strategy to recapture the Senate majority and pad their numbers in the House?
Can [Paul] Ryan survive as speaker? Does Mr. Ryan even want to survive as speaker of a House where any negotiating room is likely to be severely constricted by pressure from his right? What about Merrick B. Garland or an alternative choice for the Supreme Court? Will Republicans finally make way for the court-shifting nominee of a Democratic president, or will Democrats resort to ending the filibuster to fill a court opening?
These are all good questions, for which there are no obvious answers, but these challenges will unfold against a broader challenge playing out in the background: Donald Trump, if he comes up short, will not be eager to accept responsibility for defeat.
On the contrary, he would expect party officials and GOP leaders to pay a price for his failure. Trump is laying the foundation for these arguments already. read more
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.