Rachel Maddow

Trump refuses to say how Muslim ‘databases’ would be different from Nazi IDs for Jews

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during an appearance in Newton, Iowa on Nov. 19, 2015. [MSNBC]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during an appearance in Newton, Iowa on Nov. 19, 2015. [MSNBC]


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would not explain how registering American Muslims in a “database” would be different from the identification Germany’s Nazi regime forced upon Jewish residents, in footage aired on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday night.

The footage shows NBC reporter Vaughn Hillyard asking from off-camera, “Why would Muslim databases not be the same thing as requiring Jews to register in Nazi Germany? What would be the difference? Is there a difference between the two?”

After asking Hillyard where he works, Trump refuses to say anything but, “You tell me” before walking away.

“Should Muslims be fearful?” Hillyard asks. “Will there be consequences if they don’t register?”

However, Trump says nothing and continues walking away from the reporter.

RELATED: Trump crosses the Nazi line: Maybe Muslims should wear special ID badges

The real estate mogul’s reluctance to address the question came after he told Hillyard that he “would certainly implement” such a database against the country’s Muslim population, saying that it would be “good management.” Later, Hillyard said, his campaign staff refused his request to obtain further clarification from Trump regarding his remarks.

Hillyard pursued that line of questioning following Trump’s refusal earlier in the day to discount forcing Muslims to carry specialized identification marking their religion, saying, “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy.”

Watch Maddow’s commentary and the footage involving Trump,

As aired on Thursday,

Maddow Shreds Republicans Critical of Clinton for Following Law Signed by Reagan (Video)


With Hillary Clinton’s over nine hours of Benghazi testimony now in the books, it’s time for the experts and pundits to dissect everything that went down during the Republican-led sideshow they’re calling an “investigation.” And being that this sham of a “hearing” went on from morning well into the evening on Thursday, there’s plenty to go over.

Well, Rachel Maddow took exception to fact that Republicans have taken a process which has really never been partisan in the past, and turned it into a ridiculous spectacle that is nothing more than political theater meant to harm Clinton’s chances next year. In particular, Maddow emphasized that the Republican-led committee went after Clinton for the formation of an Accountability Review Board (ARB – an acronym that was used constantly on Thursday), even though a law signed by Ronald Reagan required her to do so.

The MSNBC host pointed out that the law passed during the Reagan administration was a direct result of several security flaws in Beirut that led to terrorist attacks against Americans, including the deaths of 241 service members when a Marine barracks was bombed. These ARB’s were never meant to be partisan or used as political tools to attack politicians. Nor have we ever seen an instance in this country where a tragedy has been exploited like Republicans have done with Benghazi.

“We have never had a congressional partisan carnival like this over an attack on a US outpost overseas, never,” Maddow said. “In the history of Beirut, in the history of Khobar Towers, of the East Africa embassy bombings, of the 9/11 commission, even, of the attack on the USS Cole, on even the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.” And it’s an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

These sorts of committees aren’t meant to be used to wage character assassinations for political gain. Not only that, but it’s deplorable for anyone – Democrat or Republican – to exploit any tragedy to wage petty partisan attacks against their opponent. Now I know what many Republicans will say: But we want to know what happened! Clinton has clearly been covering up and hiding the truth!  No, she hasn’t.

This is the eighth  congressional investigation into Benghazi. Of those eight, six have been led by Republicans. Even after over nine hours of testimony, the general consensus by most was that there was nothing new said today that hadn’t already been established by the previous seven  investigations.

Then again, this wasn’t about finding out “the truth.” This was nothing but a spectacle meant to try to trap Clinton into a “gotcha” moment. It was clear they intended the proceedings to drag on for a ridiculous amount of time (11 hours in total, including breaks) hoping through sheer exhaustion the former Secretary of State would give them something they could turn into an attack on her later.

Unfortunately for them, she didn’t. In fact, when it was all said and done, she looked more presidential than ever before. But Maddow finished the segment in a rather somber note, issuing a slight warning for the nation. “Republicans have turned it all into one big hilarious partisan joke,” Maddow stated. “If God loves America, we will find out soon that somewhere there is a reset button that we can hit after this is over to erase this as a potential precedent for our country moving forward.”

The next time something like this happens (which will eventually happen) it’s likely we’ll never know the actual truth. Because Republicans have established that it’s now fair game to use these types of hearings not to legitimately investigate what happened based on facts, but to wage political attacks against people they want to try to take down. And in a process that was never meant to be partisan, Republicans have turned it into one of the most partisan issues of the last three years.

Watch the segment via MSNBC

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Criticizes The New York Times Over Blaming Sources For Botched Clinton Email Story


Maddow: “It Is The Job Of A News Organization To Vet The Accuracy And The Authenticity Of Their Sources. And You Are To Blame For The Fake Stuff That Your Sources Get You To Print”



After Two Corrections, The NY Times‘ Botched Email Story Still Has An Error

NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton’s Emails

The Unanswered Questions From The NY Times‘ Debunked Clinton Emails Report


Rachel Maddow Sums Up GOP’s 2016 Predicament In a Single Sentence




“Jade Helm 15” is a planned military exercise slated to take place across the Southwest this summer, orchestrated by the Pentagon.

But to conspiracy theorists on the far right, it’s the planned takeover of Texas by the federal government. Walmart’s even involved, or so the paranoid fantasy goes, closing five of its stores to use as food-distribution centers and house invaders from China. Oh, and each of these Walmarts is also connected to one another by secret underground tunnels (Matthew Yglesias at Vox has a full explanation of the Jade Helm 15 Conspiracy.)

This is a UFO hunter’s fever-dream. But rather than treat this crazy conspiracy with scorn, Republican governor Greg Abbott is lending it legitimacy by having the state guard monitor the exercises. Even Texas senator Ted Cruz (R), who is running for president, asked the Pentagon about the planned takeover.

Rachel Maddow sees the fate of the Republican Party in the 2016 election writ large in the Jade Helm 15 controversy.

“This is one of those issues that is hilarious to the real world but is totally serious business in Republican world,” Maddow said on her show Wednesday night.

Maddow went on to point out the irony of accusing the military and Walmart — two institutions more often venerated than not on the right — of conspiracy, then said the Jade Helm 15 controversy has nonetheless made it into mainstream Republican politics.

“To most Republican politicians, particularly those competing for the Republican presidential nomination, where only Republican base voters will decide who’s allowed to run, if you have a choice between seeming insane to normal people and seeming righteous to the base, which are you going to pick?” Maddow said.

“There’s an incentive to pick seeming righteous to the base even if it is seeming nutty to everybody else,” she added.

And that, folks, is the GOP’s 2016 problem.


10 reasons Rand Paul will never set foot in the White House — except on a tour

Rand Paul (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

Rand Paul (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

The Raw Story

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is officially running for president, but his White House aspirations are just as clumsily implausible as an Ayn Rand plot.

The son of conservative folk hero Ron Paul, the retired Texas congressman and failed Republican presidential candidate, likes to present himself as a civil libertarian.

But his actual positions on many issues are mean-spirited, religiously tinged claptrap that’s reactionary enough to win a GOP primary, but far too hard-right to win a national election.

For example, Paul thinks six months is plenty of time to pay unemployment benefits to jobless workers – and anything beyond that does them a “disservice” by encouraging them to remain unemployed. “I don’t doubt the president’s motives, but black unemployment in America is double white unemployment — and it hasn’t budged under this president. A lot of African-Americans voted for him, but I don’t think it’s worked.”

Paul is against public assistance on a fundamental level, once suggesting the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers to discourage them from having more children. “Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.’” The small-government conservative admitted that would be unpopular and difficult to implement, but he thinks it’s worth a shot. “It’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money, but we have to figure out how to get that message through.”

The libertarian senator’s views on abortion are right in line with the GOP establishment, and the self-certified ophthalmologist touts his professional bona fides to argue that life begins at conception. “I often say in my speeches that I don’t think a civilization can long endure that doesn’t respect the rights of the unborn,” said Paul, who supports fetal personhood legislation that would outlaw abortion and likely prohibit contraception, stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization.

Paul also cites the same ridiculous slippery-slope arguments as any religious conservative against same-sex marriage. “If we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further,” Paul said. “Does it have to be humans?” He later claimed his warning against human-animal marriage was sarcastic and pointed to other arguments he made during the same Glenn Beck radio appearance, saying that he opposed marriage equality on economic grounds. “What is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say, ‘Oh, we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.’”

Paul agreed with Beck during another radio appearance that Obama’s immigration policies would make most Americans “second-class citizens” compared to undocumented migrants. “I’m thinking about lobbying to become an illegal immigrant so I wouldn’t have to participate in Obamacare,” Paul said.

Speaking of the Affordable Care Act, the senator backed the Republican shutdown of the federal government in an ill-fated attempt to defund the health care law – although Paul publicly said he was willing to compromise. “I know we don’t want to be here, but we’re going to win this, I think,” Paul told then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

He used the death of Eric Garner, who was choked to death by officers while selling untaxed cigarettes, to argue against government regulation. “I think it’s hard not to watch that video of him saying, ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,’ and not be horrified by it,” Paul said. “But I think there’s something bigger than the individual circumstances. Obviously, the individual circumstances are important. But I think it is also important to know that some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes, so they’ve driven cigarettes underground so as to not make them so expensive.”

The self-certified physician expressed doubts about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in the midst of a measles outbreak linked to anti-vaxxer families. “I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” Paul said, citing evidence that directly contradicts the scientific and medical consensus.

The senator furiously sniffed that he didn’t realize speeches required citations after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow caught him plagiarizing a Wikipedia article on the movie, Gattaca. Additional analysis found that Paul had lifted portions of other speeches without citing his sources, and the senator later scrubbed those remarks from his website. “I will admit sometimes we haven’t footnoted things properly,” he said. “I’ve written scientific papers. I know how to footnote things, but we’ve never footnoted speeches — and if that’s the standard I’m going to be held to, yes, we will change and we will footnote things.”

Paul and Maddow famously tousled before over his controversial remarks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul, during his 2010 Senate run, defended the property rights of restaurant owners who wished to bar blacks. “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant — or does the government own his restaurant?” he said at the time. “These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.” Maddow mocked Paul four years later, when the Kentucky senator celebrated the 50th anniversary of the landmark legislation.

GOP senator warns of ‘anarchy’ and ‘violence’

While the Senate debates the bipartisan budget plan, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime deficit hawk, outlines his annual Wastebook which points a critical finger at billions of dollars in questionable government spending,  Dec. 17, 2013.

While the Senate debates the bipartisan budget plan, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime deficit hawk, outlines his annual Wastebook which points a critical finger at billions of dollars in questionable government spending, Dec. 17, 2013 | J. Scott Applewhite/AP

MSNBC – Rachel Maddow Blog

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on MSNBC yesterday, and when host Alex Wagner asked what kind of advice he’d give his party’s leaders in Congress, Steele offered some sound advice. “The first would be, ‘Get a grip,’” he said.
Steele’s comments came to mind after reading this report published last night by USA Today.
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.
“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see – hopefully not – but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”
The far-right senator went on to say, “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”
It’s hard to know what to make of such an odd perspective. If Coburn is correct, why weren’t there similar outbursts of anarchy and violence when Presidents Reagan and Bush took very similar executive actions? If the masses are so deeply concerned about separation of powers and the often-ambiguous lines surrounding executive authority, wouldn’t we have seen instances of pandemonium before?
As a practical matter, I’m not even sure how this would work. The Obama administration has limited resources, so it appears likely to prioritize deportations for criminals who entered the country illegally. So, in Coburn’s vision, anti-immigrant activists will become violent, perhaps literally rioting in the street, until more unobtrusive families are broken up?
Brian Beutler reminded Republicans overnight that “just because right-wingers are blind with rage doesn’t mean Obama’s immigration action is illegal.”
It turns out that the laws on the books actually don’t say what you might think they say. Other presidents have discovered this, too. And since nobody wants to write a “maybe I should’ve asked some lawyers first” mea culpa column, they shifted the debate from the terrain of laws to the murkier terrain of political precedent, norms, and procedure. […]
What’s new is that Republicans have perfected a strategy of rejectionism with the help of a media amplification infrastructure—Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh—that the left hasn’t adopted and doesn’t yet enjoy. Rather than simply fight to reverse the policy in Congress and on the campaign trail—as liberals do when Republicans weaken environmental enforcement—the right can also now scream “Caesar!” without reference to any objective standards, and get a full hearing.
“Get a grip,” indeed.

Morning Maddow – 11-3-2014


The Rachel Maddow Blog

World Trade Center reopens for business. (AP)


Pres. Obama: ‘Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.’ (Politico)


Independent candidate drops out of Connecticut governor’s race, endorses Republican. (Hartford Courant)


Ebola nurse Kaci Hickox on why she felt she had to fight Govs. Christie and LePage. (Portland Press Herald)


The armed security guard on a CDC elevator with Pres. Obama was not a convicted felon. (Washington Post)


Iraqis prepare ISIS offensive with U.S. help. (NY Times)


U.S.-backed Syrian rebels routed by fighters linked to al Qaeda. (Washington Post)


Thieves steal the “Arbeit Macht Frei” gate from Germany’s Dachau concentration camp. (NBC News)

Rachel Maddow says what we’re all thinking about John Oliver

Rachel Maddow says what we're all thinking about John Oliver

Rachel Maddow (Credit: MSNBC)


The MSNBC pundit says she’d love to “use dogs with fake paws to reenact Supreme Court oral arguments

Rachel Maddow addressed two very important issues surrounding the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday night. The first of which, Maddow explains, took place on HBO.

Yes, Maddow discussed John Oliver and his use of “Real Animals Fake Paws” to reenact Supreme Court arguments. “I am not allowed to speak for the news division here,” Maddow states. “Part of the reason why is because if I were in charge of the news devision here, I would totally do this. I would totally use dogs with fake paws to reenact Supreme Court oral arguments.”

“That said,” Maddow continues, “this now exists as an asset in our nation’s arsenal in how to cover civics and understand important decisions made by one of our three branches of government.”

Maddow then covers Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “blistering dissent” on the Texas Voter ID ruling, which she stayed up until 5:00 AM writing. Watch below:

Rachel Maddow Is Repulsed At Congress For Taking A Bajillion Days Off While New War Is Launched

MSNBC Screenshot 9-18-2014

All the more reason the leaders (and party) of this fiasco should be voted out of office…

The Huffington Post

Rachel Maddow has already teared into Congress over its handling of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, but a new move by the House and Senate has pushed the MSNBC host over the edge.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama made a speech praising Congress for quickly passing new legislation that will support his plan to arm and train Syrian rebels. That very same day, the House announced that members of Congress would be taking their five-week recess a week early, and would most likely not return until after congressional elections in November.

Maddow was visibly appalled by this, calling it the reason Americans find Congress so repulsive and “repellent.”

“Sixteen-hundred US military families have gotten the call that they’ve had their loved ones deployed to Iraq, they’re flying those missions right now,” Maddow said. “But Congress? Heading home for another seven week break, because they can’t be bothered to think about that right now. They’ve got more important business to tend to they’ve gotta get re-elected. Because that’s the most important thing they do, right?”

Watch the video for the full clip on MSNBC.

(h/t: Raw Story)