text:
One day after her network joined the rest of corporate media in cheering for President Trump's missile attack on Syria, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was back to regular business: seeing Russian collaboration with Trump at work.
It's "impossible," fellow anchor Lawrence O'Donnell told Maddow on April 7, to rule out that "Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week – so that his friend in the White House could have a big night with missiles and all of the praise he's picked up over the past 24 hours."
Maddow concurred, suggesting that only the FBI's ongoing probe into Trump's alleged collusion with Russian electoral interference will determine the truth. "Maybe eventually we'll get an answer to that from [FBI Director] Jim Comey," Maddow said.
The Washington Post noted that the "conspiracy theory" drew "derision from across the political spectrum." But it was not out of place.
MSNBC, the country's most prominent liberal media outlet, has played a key role in stoking the frenzy over Trump's alleged involvement with Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential race — in lock step with the Democratic Party's most avid partisans.
Jennifer Palmieri, a senior member of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, captured the prevailing mentality when she recently urged party members to talk about the Russian "attack on our republic" — and to do so "relentlessly and above all else."
And no leading media figure has done so more than Maddow. In the period since Election Day, "The Rachel Maddow Show" has covered "The Russia Connection" — and Russia, generally — more than it has any other issue.
Here is a video sampling:
The Intercept conducted a quantitative study of all 28 TRMS episodes in the six-week period between February 20 and March 31. Russia-focused segments accounted for 53 percent of these broadcasts.
That figure is conservative, excluding segments where Russia was discussed, but was not the overarching topic.
Maddow's Russia coverage has dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues, including Trump's escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants (1.3 percent of coverage); Obamacare repeal (3.8 percent); the legal battle over Trump's Muslim ban (5.6 percent), a surge of anti-GOP activism and town halls since Trump took office (5.8 percent), and Trump administration scandals and stumbles (11 percent).
Maddow's focus on Russia has helped her ratings, which are at their highest level since 2008.
As MSNBC's most popular host, Maddow over the years has become a critical voice for U.S. progressives, helping to shape the outlook of millions of viewers and the smaller left-leaning outlets that follow her lead. A supremely gifted journalist who Vanity Fair has dubbed "the smartest person on TV," Maddow's influence is well-earned. She frequently brings pivotal national attention to overlooked stories, such as the poisoning of Flint, Michgan's water supply.
While proof of collusion with Moscow could well emerge — and could well topple Trump's presidency — the "above all else" focus on Russia lacks concrete supporting evidence, either of Russian hacking and cyber disinformation impacting the vote's outcome or of the Trump campaign's complicity with it. Journalist Matt Taibbi calls it "an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria."
This muddies the waters for a sober, credible investigation of Russia's actions — but that is the least of its consequences. Democrats have avoided constructive introspection on their seismic election loss by blaming the Kremlin. Anti-Russia sentiment threatens to turn into rank xenophobia and escalate tensions with a nuclear-armed power. And most critically for a vital news source like Maddow's show, every moment devoted to scrutinizing Trump's alleged Russia ties deflects attention from his administration's actual policies.
In the six-week period we reviewed, Maddow covered Russia not just more than any other issue, but more than every other issue combined. The contrast is particularly striking when comparing the amount of time that speculative Russia stories received versus critical non-Russia issues.
The Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare, which was in full swing during the six-week period, got less coverage (nearly 46 minutes) than six other individual Russia issues on the chart below, such as the plight of Russian dissidents under Putin's rule (54 minutes) or alleged Russian hacking and cyber disinformation (70 minutes). Trump's Muslim travel ban got less time (67 minutes) than any one of four other Russia-related issues, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's Russia ties (88 minutes). Trump's escalation of immigration raids and deportations (16 minutes) got just over half the coverage of the Russian-related machinations of his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort (31 minutes).
In 16 of the 28 episodes analyzed, Russia comprised either all or a substantial part of the "A-block", the show's headlining and far lengthiest segment, which often amounts to nearly half the show, excluding commercials.
Maddow's foremost concern has been alleged Trump-Moscow collusion, which she has repeatedly suggested has continued beyond the election. Here she is on March 9:
What's getting to be, I think, particularly unsettling, is that simultaneously, we are … number one, nailing down more direct connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government at the time the Russian government was influencing our election. Number two, at the same time, we are also starting to see what may be signs of continuing influence in our country. Not just during the campaign but during the administration. Basically, signs of what could be a continuing operation.
Maddow has acknowledged that allegations of Trump-Russia collusion are unverified. But she has ignored claims that cast them in a more skeptical light. For instance, James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told NBC News on March 5 that U.S. intelligence has "no evidence" of collusion between Trump and Russia. On March 15, former CIA Director and Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell said "there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all." Those statements have gone unmentioned.
Proposed budget cuts, canceled press briefings, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's muted role have led Maddow to wonder if Trump is weakening the State Department on Vladimir Putin's behalf. "We have to ask," Maddow said in a 12-minute segment on March 8, "whether [Russia] wanted actions by U.S. political figures to weaken the parts of America that most annoy and that most undermine Vladimir Putin." In an extended follow-up the next night, Maddow said, "Silencing the U.S. State Department, putting a friend of Vladimir Putin's in charge at the U.S. State Department, who stands by quietly while the State Department gets hollowed out, gets gutted… That's a dream for Putin."
On March 7, WikiLeaks published documents exposing cyber tools used by the CIA to penetrate cell phones and other devices. Two days later, Maddow blamed Putin. Reminding viewers that WikiLeaks had released the Podesta emails, Maddow asked:
Consider what the other U.S. agency is besides the State Department that Putin most hates? That Putin most feels competitive with? That Putin most wants to beat? It's the CIA, right? Spy versus spy. Putin is ex-KGB. He's an ex-FSB officer… Smart observers say this is the largest dump of classified CIA material maybe ever, and it really could be a devastating blow to the CIA's cyber war and flat-out spying capabilities, and that dump was released by WikiLeaks.
Maddow ommited the widely circulated reports that U.S. intelligence officials believe that the CIA's own contractors were behind the cyber tools leak.
A popular internet theory posits that RT (formerly Russia Today), the Kremlin-funded television network, had advance knowledge of a WikiLeaks release of hacked Podesta emails. The claim is based on RT's Twitter account reporting the release 19 minutes before WikiLeaks' Twitter account did. Here's Maddow on March 9:
Russian state television was magically able to tweet about the next release of John Podesta e-mails. The sixth release of John Podesta e-mails even before WikiLeaks released them… Russia Today, how did you know it was coming?
But RT answered the question months earlier: the Podesta emails appeared on the WikiLeaks website before WikiLeaks got around to tweeting about it.
On March 8 – one day after congressional Republicans unveiled their Obamacare repeal bill – Maddow led her show with "dramatic news." U.S. officials, she explained, "are looking into a Russian citizen in conjunction with one of the incidents on the Trump campaign last year which defied explanation at the time": the rejection of a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that called for sending lethal aid to Ukraine. Politico reported of the Russian in question, Konstantin Kilimnik: "after a late summer trip to the U.S., Kilimnik suggested that he had played a role in gutting a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that would have staked out a more adversarial stance towards Russia, according to a Kiev operative."
The Politico report, Maddow explained over the course of 16 minutes, confirms "essentially a quid pro quo between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign," whereby the Trump campaign sought "to take Russian intervention in Ukraine basically out of the Republican Party platform as an issue."
But Politico's main revelation was that U.S. investigators are "looking into" a Russian guy who an unnamed Ukrainian "operative" says "suggested" that he helped the Trump campaign change the language in a document that has no practical effect on anything, and that in fact remained strongly pro-Ukrainian government, stating:
We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.
On January 17, Maddow opened her broadcast by noting the parallels between Vladimir Putin's political ascent and former British spy Christopher Steele's just-disclosed dossier asserting that Russia has compromising details on Donald Trump's sex life. "How Vladimir Putin stopped being just a KGB guy and got political power in the first place was by producing, at just the right time and in just the right way, just the right sex tape to use for political purposes," Maddow said.
Maddow then discussed the increase of U.S. troops near Russia's border during President Obama's last days in office:
"The Kremlin is furious about it," Maddow said. "Russia hates it, but our allies—they say they want it." And so, with Trump about to enter the White House, Maddow had this to say:
Here's the question – is the new president going to take those troops out? After all the speculation, after all the worry, we are actually about to find out if Russia maybe has something on the new president? We're about to find out if the new president of our country is going to do what Russia wants once he's commander-in-chief of the U.S. military starting noon on Friday. What is he going to do with those deployments? Watch this space. Seriously.
As of this writing, Trump has not withdrawn the troops.
On March 7, Maddow led with the day's top story: the unveiling of Republican plans to repeal Obamacare. "If you are worried about losing your health insurance, if you are worried about 20 million of your fellow Americans losing their health insurance, today was very scary," Maddow said.
But after less than two minutes, Maddow promised to return to the story later and shifted gears to a higher editorial priority:
But we are going to start at this embassy. The embassy, this is a big one. It is fully staffed … there's even an attaché specifically for fish. The fisheries attaché is named Mr. Oleg Vladimirovich Rykov.
Viewers were then treated to a 22-minute deep dive into the Steele dossier and the various ways "the bits and pieces of what's reported in this dossier are turning out to be true and reported and checkable." When Maddow finally returned to the day's opening, "scary" story about millions standing to lose their health insurance, she gave it less than four more minutes.
Six days later, on March 13, Maddow opened with the day's "absolutely astonishing" news that the Congressional Budget Office was now estimating that 24 million people would lose their health insurance if Republicans manage to repeal Obamacare. But after less than two minutes, Maddow again veered off: "We're actually going to start the show tonight on the subject of money, lots and lots and lots and lots of money." The ensuing 20-minute segment speculated on whether the recent firing of New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara could be tied to investigations into Russian money laundering through Deutsche Bank and the Bank of Cyprus. The CBO's Obamacare repeal news ended up getting less than five minutes of Maddow's time.
On March 16, Trump unveiled a budget that would boost military funding and slash vital government spending. But Maddow viewers heard no mention of the EPA, public broadcasting, meals on wheels, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Community Development Block Grant program, or other targets of Trump's domestic cuts. Instead, Maddow began the show by recounting the shady Russian bid to win the 2014 Winter Olympics, and how a Russian air cargo company involved in the scandal would later become one of several Russian entities that made payments to former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The 22-minute segment explored the issue of whether Flynn committed a crime in taking money from Russians, and whether the Trump campaign knew about it. The next 12 minutes were devoted to alleged Russian hacking that targeted down-ballot congressional Democratic candidates in 2016, and the Clinton campaign's response.
Given her political expertise, journalistic acumen, and influential platform, Maddow is ideally suited to explore the Democrats' 2016 electoral collapse in an insightful way. But the time and investigative zeal that Maddow has devoted to Russia has come at the cost of any such analysis. Maddow has shunned critical issues such as the Democratic establishment's embrace of neoliberal financial policies and rejection of economic populism. Her audience has heard next to no discussion of why a segment of Obama voters abandoned Democrats for Trump or didn't vote at all. Instead, lengthy segments have suggested that Clinton and the Democrats were done in by such Russian "active measures" as anti-Clinton bot attacks (their key target, a Bernie Sanders Facebook fan page in San Diego); hackers interfering in Congressional races; and fake news stories and social media posts.
On several occasions, Maddow has described Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 race as an "attack on our election." On March 21, she went further:
This is not part of American politics. This is not, you know, partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare against our country. And it did not end on Election Day. We are still in it.
But whatever Russia may have done, it was not "international warfare." And it was most likely far less consequential than U.S. interference in other countries over many decades, including Russia itself.
"If the worst is true," Maddow warned on March 17, "if the presidency is effectively a Russian op, if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign — I mean, that is so profoundly big, we not only need to stay focused on figuring it out. We need to start preparing for what the consequences are going to be if it proves to be true."
But what if the allegations are ultimately disproved or go nowhere? Maddow and likeminded influential liberals will have led their audience on a fruitless quest, all the while helping foment anti-Russia sentiment, channeling Democratic Party energy away from productive self-critique, and diverting focus from the White House's actual policies. Trump would be handed a further gift via the damaged credibility of his "enemy": the media responsible for holding him to account.
And what if the media's focus on the "Russia Connection" ends up goading Trump to become more bellicose with Russia? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently moved its doomsday clock to its highest point since 1953. Among many contributing factors, the Bulletin warned: "The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters."
The need for caution was perhaps most starkly underscored last week with Trump's Syria bombing, which prompted the Kremlin to warn that Russia and the U.S. are "on the verge" of military conflict. Rather than raising the ludicrous theory that the attack on Syria was orchestrated by Putin, as Maddow and O'Donnell speculated, it's worth asking if Trump was motivated at least in part to show the media – a top presidential preoccupation – that Putin isn't pulling the strings.
But Maddow shows no signs of slowing down. Her top story on Monday night was about the detention in Spain of a prominent Russian spammer, Pyotr Levashov, at the FBI's request. Levashov's wife has told reporters that his arrest may be linked to a computer virus "associated with" Trump's election victory. The FBI has offered no details. "This is the news," Maddow reported in her 13-minute segment. "The Russian guy just got arrested."
My last response may not be considered "civil" by moderators so just in case I will restate: I find this attack on the reporting and analysis by Rachel Maddow suspiciously ignorant (and no I don't work for MSNBC, I'm just a lowly school teacher). When my country and I get caught up in a Russian cyberattack campaign of fake news, disinformation, hacking, hoarded hired to do fake message board postings, and other propaganda designed to sway our election in favor of a fascist, foment even more more political polarization and hysteria and demoralize our belief in democracy, I WANT to know more about it!!! Thankfully she is relentless on this and, while she's not perfect, obviously neither are you or you'd be making more sense. Since we now know Putin was also targeting the Left too, I wonder who or what is behind this article and many of these posts too. Putin is a fascist kleptocrat. He downed a passenger plane, is responsible for the gassing & bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, he poisons and murders his political opponents and journalists, and is a sexist homophobic narcissist to boot. Why exactly are you defending him and damning a journalist taking him to task? as if she could start WW III not him? Very suspicious…. And NO, what Maddow is doing is nothing like Macarthyism or red scare. Please explain that analogy or stop being hyperbolic and nonsensical. If you don't like what Maddow is doing, if you don't care to know, quit being hysterical and change the channel.
This is just dumb… period. This is not anything like the red scare or Macarthyism. This is a newscaster a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in political Science) informing people with facts and analysis about something REALLY IMPORTANT! Who the F are you? Russia/Putin purposely swayed the election for Trump and wanted to foment and exploit distrust in our government and democracy. That is a Fact. Putin is also using the same PLAN to encourage fascism elsewhere. Rachel Maddow is following up on it…GOOD!!! Quit defending and downplaying the threat of Russia and Putin!!! He downed a passenger plane! He is responsible for the murder and gassing of hundreds of thousands of Syrians!!!! He is a kleptocrat and a fascist! He murders journalist and opposition leaders, he's a sexist homophobe too. If you prefer not to see this Perdue by a journalist on TV, change the channel and move the [email protected]& on. You are being STUPID!
Well, as expected, Maddow failed to address the news that the FBI announced that the CIA hack was an inside job, not the work of Putin as she had charged. What a surprise!
Chalk about another failure to follow up and correct, and just go on as if she had never blamed Russia for it. Same thing she did with Ned "I claimed my resignation had nothing to do with politics but then I turned out to be a big Clinton donor" Price.
p.s. She did have plenty of time to explore all the big money that poured into Trump's Inauguration Day fund from donors (amazingly she didn't link Putin to it) but somehow couldn't spare a minute for the FBI announcement.
I'm not saying Maddow is a Russian agent tasked with making American msm look bad, but if she were, she's doing a fine job.
Well what do you know, turns out Rachel's accusation that Putin was behind the big CIA hack turned out to be false. It was an inside job all along:
I expect Maddow to treat this news like she did with the Ned Price story: by pretending it doesn't exist and moving on to her next Russian conspiracy tale. For those who don't know who Ned Price is, he's the supposedly "non politically motivated" CIA analyst who wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about his resignation, then went on the MSNBC circuit. Once people found out he was in fact a big Clinton booster, the public outcry forced the Post to issue a correction. But did Rachel follow up on things too? Uh, no. Expect her to do the same with this news: silence. Besides, she's got O'Reilly to distract you all with!
"As MSNBC's most popular host, Maddow over the years has become a critical voice for U.S. progressives"
Maddow is NOT a Progressive. She is a million dollar mouthpiece for the oligarchy.
Let's be 100% clear, Maddow is NO Progressive; period.
She's playing the ratings game, luring in the butthurt Hillary crowd who finds comfort in every Russian conspiracy tale. Ratings are WAY up since she adopted the narrative, which means big $$$ for all.
It's like this Ned Price guy who started out writing that op-ed piece in the Washington Post claiming he was resigning from the CIA because he couldn't work for Trump, but that politics had nothing to do with it, honest! Then it turns out he's a huge Clinton booster, there's a public outcry and the Post finally runs a correction saying, "yeah, we should've told you upfront the guy was a huge Clinton booster, our bad!"
Then he goes on Rachel's show, throwing out the same "I'm not politically motivated" story for why he resigned, and proceeded to bash Trump. (Of course, Rachel never followed up with the fact he's a big Clinton booster like the Post did, but that's the TV game for you.) Pretty soon Ned gets invited to Hayes's show, then O'Donnell's, and wouldn't you know it, now he's an anointed "intel expert" appearing regularly on the network! Good gig if you can get.
Of course, given that Rachel's part of the butthurt Hillary brigade, maybe she does believe in the tales she tells.
what 'electoral collapse'?
2016 results show just more gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and ballot destruction.
I'm surprised I missed this, but glad TI broke down her obsession with Putin compared to all other issues that were competing for time.
Personally, I'm so tired of her going on and on, I rarely watch her anymore.
I recall Rachel showing Hillary walking down the stairs from her State Dept. plane while giving a fashion show commentary of her beautifully selected Armani coat and then gasped at the contrasting lining. It was unbelievable.
The point is, until the Mc Carthyite, anti Russian bs stops and the Dems start focusing on winning elections ..they may pick up a seat here and there, but won't take any major offices…IMHO.
Claire McCaskill recently said, emphatically, my constituents are demanding answers and I need to give them those answers.
So, as Claire doesn't seem to care about much else, but carrying the one issue message of DNC…my money is on her losing.
Rachel is fueling this "one issue" problem.
Of course this article was written by a DN alumni !
It's been hilarious watching Maddow slowly morph into Glenn Beck circa 2009. All she needs are some chalkboards.
So, The Intercept has an issue with Rachael recognizing that there is a problematic connection between Donnie and Russia because….? We should not trust Donnie or President Bannon or President Kushner. Just yesterday Keith Olbermann siting another journalist, suggested that there may be a tape or two where Donnie promises to lift sanctions…pretty treasonous stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DOTsl-Csic. We must Resist! We must Persist!
She's become a one trick pony…sadly.
Hillary will not be POTUS…never will.
Hold out for whom?
Someone that will really go after Putin..because we don't have enough bloody wars going on…
Keith Olbermann is deranged and should seek psychiatric help. Maybe he and Maddow could share a therapy session.
Shilling for a dead DNC is undignified, but so is McCarthyism v 2.0.
Maddow is a danger to US-Russia relationships, because you can convince the little brains who watch and believe her (including friends of mine) that there is something to her $30K a day speculation,/yapping. The US is the most propagandized nation in the world. Well, maybe second after North Korea. But pretty bad. And dangerous because we have the largest military, and use it to kill civilians in small countries with drones.
And you're going to have Nancy Pelosi, Neera Tanden and Chuck Schumer leading the "resistance", right? Comical.
Trump will ignore the various marches, women's, immigrants, science, taxes, etc. Which is why I propose a general strike. Stay at home a day or three. Lots of inactivity and silence. No one out there to be gassed with police chemical weapons, beaten by militarized police, or illegally arrested, brutalized and kangaroo courted. Just stay home and have a party. One that Sessions will frown upon.
Excellent idea!!!
We're glad that Rachel Maddow is doing a "deep dive" into the world of, Putin, Russian oligarchs, Corrupt banks, money laundering, Trump's corporate practices, tax loopholes and his big-money campaign players. It figures that the so called "left" would waste so much energy criticizing a journalist who actually makes all the connections necessary to connect the dots: FISA court suppenas, recorded surveillance of Trump Campaign operatives working as "foreign agents", NSA, FBI, British and EU surveillance records showing a hodge-podge of illegal activities. Seems like she's getting too close for comfort for the Billionaire Class!
Keep It Up Rachel!
Back to sleep there 'Unofficial'.
If anything is hyperbolic, it's the assertion that we are closer to doomsday because Rachel Maddow got us there. How about the fact that three years ago yesterday Reuters reported that "Vladimir Putin, speaking in Moscow, accused Ukraine's leaders of committing a "grave crime" by using the army to try to quell unrest in the east of the country, and did not rule out sending in Russian troops." This standoff between Russia and the West began way before Rachel Maddow ever reported on it.
The Intercept: "Stop reporting about Russia's subversion. It's very unfair because we say so and have been saying so since this whole thing started. We don't investigate any of this on our own, even though it has the potential to be a story bigger than Watergate and we are privately funded to do investigative journalism. We prefer to snipe and snark and comment on it with absurd hyperbole rather than do any serious journalism concerning it. We only write articles to cast doubt on the investigations that both the government and professional well known journalists and cybersecurity experts have produced.
We have an editorial and ideological bias which prevents us from discovering the facts and pursuing them. We much prefer the comfort of being the doubting Thomas in this situation which aligns with our ideological convictions. (We don't criticize Russia, you know).
Perfectly stated, LiberalInCalif. I was going to say the same thing, but I won't since you said so.
The Intercept is such a letdown. I don"t know who Aaron is, but I don't have to time to figure it out now. I've written off Glenn. I wish Jeremy would bolt this thing.
Both Glenn and Jeremy have a cushy gig here that requires very little production and minimal editorial constraint to keep the checks coming in. Nice gig if you can get it.
It's nice to hear from all the paid MSNBC people defending Rachel here, but the fact is she's reached the point where she has to be called out for her chicanery. Maddow simply spews out anything she feels like about Russia with no accountability. Last month she accused Putin of being behind the CIA hack, which turned out to be false. But she never admitted she was wrong, simply moving on to the next Russian conspiracy idea. Sorry, that's just plain irresponsible.
You and your little circle jerk are apparently completely unaware that you have morphed into the teabaggers you so love to ridicule
Whoa, going after Maddow for doing journalism! It's only the most important, outrageous political and global scandal of our time. I hope she keeps right on reporting it.
You call endless unevidenced Russian conspiracy gossip "journalism"? All she does is make accusations then forgets about them when they turn out to be wrong. Real journalists follow up and issue corrections when their claims turn out to be false. Rachel just goes on pretending she never said anything.
Maté, Greenwald, et. al. seem like they would've been the type to pooh-pooh the Watergate reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, as being a 'distraction' and 'hyperbolic'.
Think about this: every time Rachel shows the photo of Flynn sitting next to Putin at that RT 'ideas' conference in Moscow that he was paid to attend (and bring along his son), she *doesn't* point out that Jill Stein also is in the photo, also not far from Putin. The thing is, she doesn't have to. She knows that most of her viewership already knows that Stein was just as much a pawn in Putin's chess game to balkanize the American left as it seems that Greenwald, Assange, etc. are. And they're angry about it.
'When playing poker (or chess), if you can't figure out who the sucker is, that means it's you'.
I think we're hearing from a DNC Dem here. Meaning a right wing Rethuglican.
why doesn't my message get posted?????
I agree with many of the points here, especially that the media misses too many chances when it chooses to cover one specific angle on one specific story, ignoring anything that doesn't fit with their narrative, i.e. that Trump knowingly colluded.
I am begging to believe that if Trump colluded with Russia, it was out of ignorance. Claiming a direct and knowing link could ultimately blow-up in Ms. Maddow's face, much as her Trump tax-return fiasco did.
But it's hard to know how best to resist in this new kind of war. With Brian Williams fighting back public orgasm every time we launch a missile or drop a bomb and the Morning Joe crew deeming Trump the new George Washington, I can see Maddow feeling like a zesty portion of attack dogism is necessary to contradict that message.
Trump's greatest enemy is peace, and so his greatest weapon is to incite hate and violence in the peaceful. In that aim, he is successful, as is my goddamn roommate who whistles every time he uses the bathroom.
Infuriating how investigative reporting's drip-drip-drip revelations and musings invades and slowly (oh, so slowly) erodes the granite core of rock-solid Trumpian belief. His believers arch their stout backs high in threatening ways ready to pounce and scratch and claw against the inevitable trample of truth coming 'round the bend. Go ahead and weaponize name-calling and glittering generalities that seemed to work so well in shoring up 'the corps,' mindless adherents to the grand populist's plans, mouthing platitudes with attitudes to make America Great… yet again. Because USA-USA-USA was so small, so defenseless, so useless, so broken, so jobless, so borderless, so so-so, you needed (desperately apparently) the height of political irony — a people's billionaire (maybe), an alligator restocking the swamp with corporate sharks, an anti-protectionist, anti-humanist serial liar-in-chief. How convenient this Russian pivot, yet Ukraine's still openly exposed and undercut. I still remember the Benghazi refrain, the 'lock-her-up' chanting, the Clintons again and again and again. And Obama — god not him too — as the non-citizen, Muslim-loving, Black-Lives-Matter cheerleader. Sure, you got your guy in power by 80K votes in the rurals and hollers, in down-and-out towns, lending your hopes that he would just clean sweep all the pain and bust away to give you back your futures and dreams and incomes and choices and take us back to a 1950s lily fantasy. Good luck with that, I pray for us all. No matter the headlines, no matter the fall, we must have the truth and we must have it all or call this republic experiment done and watch what's been fought for become a kingdom.
"We need to seriously ask why the Greenwald crowd is so concerned about Maddow's reporting. Why are Greenwald & Company trying to wave us off this one? Who are they protecting? Are they worried Putin will extradite Snowden back to America to face charges? There's something hinky about this, and it has little to do with the thinness of the story, since it's far from thin. Dost thou protest too much?"
"Why are Greenwald & Company trying to wave us off this one? Who are they protecting? Are they worried Putin will extradite Snowden back to America to face charges? There's something hinky about this, and it has little to do with the thinness of the story, since it's far from thin. Dost thou protest too much?"
Ah yes, «progressives» like Ms Maddow, who love warfare made in USA and the CIA and find a Russian under every bed. Tail Gunner Joe 2.0 – only this time it's the «progressives» peddling the narrative, while people of the ilk of Messrs McCain and Graham applaud vociferously. Useful, I suppose, in seeing to it that Mr Trump does not do one of the few sensible things he promised to do in his campaign, i e, to establish decent state relations with Russia….
" to establish decent state relations with Russia…."
Do you think that decent relations with Russia should be sought above other considerations? No matter what, we need good relations with Russia?
Do you think Ukraine should seek good relations with Russia? Should they just disregard the annexation of part of their country and the instigation and continuance of a war in the eastern part of their country making it inaccessible by the Ukrainian government?
Should the US seek good relations with North Korea on your same principle, even as they continue to develop nuclear weapons?
This call for good relations sits in a vacuum where Russia can do anything it wants, but let's not consider that, even national security, let's just make good relations because it makes you feel good.
Russia is intent on subverting the elections in the EU. It wants to destroy the EU by engineering support for puppets that wish the same. Is that in the US's national interest?
Russia wants to destroy NATO. Is that in the US's national interest?
They want to destroy NATO because NATO is the only thing stopping them from pulling the same stunt they pulled in Ukraine and Georgia.
If Putin's Russia is willing to back off its ambitions, then that's a starting point. I see no indication of this. This doctrine of Putin's is historical and pernicious. It will not simply vanish.
Only someone on the far left cannot see this. Why the far left supports Assad and Putin is a mystery to me other than the far left look at every issue under anti-Western eyes.It's certainly not due to either Assad's or Putin's ideology which is closer to fascist than to socialist.
Both Putin and Assad are autocrats that are only concerned with maintaining control.
As long as there are nation states , those nation states and their allies will seek to further their national interests and they will have to contend with those nation states that oppose their interests.
This is simply the state of things.
So yeah, let's develop good relations with Russia, when there is a basis for those good relations, not just because it sounds nice to some people.
LiberalInCalif. What is your agenda? You have written the same thing over and over again throughout the comments. I don't mean to cast aspersions but your arguments consistently use the low brow rhetorical technique of frantic hyperbole (i.e., lizard brain stuff, appealing to our lowest emotions such as fear). I hope you are just trolling and not an actual "liberal", otherwise I fear that "liberals" may not be that different from the other "team". The truth does not have a color or team. By the way, I think the intention of submitting our name with the comment is so that we take responsibility for what we write and not shirk it by using a youtube-like moniker. For example, you have my real name and can google me; and I stand behind everything I just wrote. And I can guarantee that I am not a Putin mole, comrade.
Do you dispute any of the facts or arguments in my post?
My agenda is to dispute a meaningless call for good relations with Russia, without any context, which is equivalent to implying that no matter what Russia does we should nevertheless be friends, which is an absurdity.
In case you did not follow the point of my post, it is a counterargument to those who advocate "decent" relations with Russia without any context, which is an absurdity given the fact that good relations are completely dependent on the actions of both parties and their objectives.
I prefer to be anonymous here. So sue me.
So it is a mystery to you why people rather have Assad and Putin than your supposedly free syrian Army. First of all because they are not Syrian and second because they are nowhere in the lines of being free. Maybe you have missed out on the war, but I am pretty certain that you have heard of something like the Al Nusra front and ISIS and all those moderate jihadists. Now I understand that for you in USA it doesnt matter if they win the war against assad or not. However for the Syrians and the Russians it matters a lot. First of all, thousands of Russian muslims have joint these socalled moderates and when they go back to Russia they will become a major problem.
Like I said, for you in USA it is not such a big problem.
Your monster was the very same monster you created against the Russians.
Second, it is of great importance for Russia to sell their oil and gas to Europe and not let Saudi and Qatari oil and gas become a major source. Again for geo-political reasons. You know so that your country cant put all out Economic sanctions and starve the people to death. Like you did with the children in Irak. You remember them.
Assad does not allow the Saudis,Qataris, Europeans and USA to build their oil pipe. This is of value forboth countries.
Now when it comes to Assad and Syria. Yes Assad is a dictator, but not more than any other in the region. Why dont you ask you pathetc government to go and safe the women in Saudi Arabia or Qatar or maybe Pakistan. And any other country in the region that hasa far more disrupted government than Syria. Maybe it would also be an advise to read and even watch former officials talk about the countries the USA invaded or wanted to invade even before 2005. Or watch an interview with CNN Amanpour and Assad in 2005 / 2006 where she asks him what he thinks when hearing that the USA is trying to get regime change in Syria. If i am correct the socalled Syrian Civil War started in 2012? Do you have any thoughts about this?
Coming back to Ukraine.It was the West who staged a coup, not the other way around. Merely 6 months before the election the government was removed from office and replaced by a USA friendly government. And yet reading your comments it were the Russians who did all of this. But when we listen to tapes of Mrs. Nuland we hear her speaking of investing more than 5Billion USD into creating a more USA friendly government long before 2014. It is pretty funny to see how you areable to distort history as you go.
Stop pretending that you are the light of an otherwise with darkness enshrouded world. You are one of the major contributors to that worldof Darkness. Please remember this, and the Russians have met your way of corporate democracy in the 90s. It wasnt a big succes. The life expectancy decreased from 64 to 58 for men and from 74 to71 for women.
Your rule was more brutal than those in the Soviet period.
Assad is a mass murderer. His army has produced 90% of civilian casualties including deaths of over 400,000 people. If you have seen videos of the indiscriminate dropping of barrel bombs and the bombing of hospitals you cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a deliberate terror campaign conducted against his own citizens.
There is definitely a question of how to transition power to a coherent stable and non-extremist rebel faction that can form a government and also the question of how to deal with the AQ-ISIS type groups that will be the insurgents against any such government.
Pretty hard to get any worse that a dictator who mass slaughters his own citizens though.
It's a convoluted mess that may take decades to straighten out. But any resolution has to include the ending of Assad's regime and he being tried for war crimes.
You sure are easy prey for the propagandists.
Assad has been fighting a tough war against terrorists, sometimes armed and trained by both gulf states and the US. They hide among civilians and have an effective propaganda machine that makes sure to broadcast every casualty, civilian or not.
The number of civilian casualties you cite is rediculous, and so is your statement that Assad is conducting a "deliberate terror campaign against his own people".
To get close to the truth – start by believing that people are rational, and not insane. Assad has nothing to gain and everything to lose by targeting civilians with bombs, and especially with gas.
But as the US are now painfully experiencing in Mosul – it is impossible to take out terrorists embedded with civilian without civilian casualties. And the US have much more sofisticated and precise weapons than Assad gas, and still we see mosques being bombed, shelters full of civilians being bombed, and so on.
The US is lucky that the "white helmets" and the Syrian Observatory are not as eager to publish footage of the sufferings in Mosul as they were in Aleppo, or you would have to call your own government terrorists as well if you were to follow through on your own logic.
"Death Toll From War in Syria Now 470,000, Group Finds"
The oil pipeline is total BS conspiracy theory. How the hell do you think the Saudis and Qutaries export their oil and gas now? They have no problem doing that. It's just nonsense. Same with the Russia Black Sea BS about a pipeline. Russia is the biggest exporter in the world now. They have no problem getting the oil to market.
Tell your Ukraine coup nonsense to the 100s of thousands of Ukrainians who actually were there protesting.
The revolution happened only after the 100 protesters were gunned down in the street. Until that day there was an agreement to hold new early elections etc etc.
Russia started the revolt in the Donetz region and I can show you pictures of the Russians who were there at the start including Strelkov. There was discontent but it was the Russians who instigated and organized and lead the revolt.
Sure the US funded many programs in Ukraine over the years, including all the years Yanukovych was in power. So what? Ukraine could have cut off those funds at any time. They didn't. Most of the money went to civil society, pro-democracy NGOs and stuff like that. You against an open society with a strong civil society where democracy is strong?
Russia is responsible for their own fate. They had the choice of what economic programs they wished to pursue. They INVITED the US economic advisers when the economy was already a basket case. Russia could have done whatever it wanted to. It chose its own path. No one was responsible except for their own ineptness and incompetence.
Neither Maddcow, MSNBC, the DNC and Clinton are not anywhere near progressive. I get sick of seeing them called this. They are corporate dem sellouts; repubs with a pale blue tint. If they were progressive in the least, Bernie wouldn't have gotten ignored, marginalized and basically robbed of the nomination. These corporate tools still won't acknowledge their trouncing in November was from their complete mismanagement, their corrupt primary rigging, their pro-corporate stance, their arrogance in thinking Shillary could easily beat the Manchurian Candidate they and the complicit corporate media pushed forth, their refusal to accept that Shillary was the second-most flawed candidate ever nominated by a major political party and their blindness to the uprising and popularity of the Sanders campaign. It took an incredible amount of dysfunctionality to lose to a creep like Trumpf, but the dummycrats pulled it off. The DNC choked even worse than the Atlanta Falcoons did in the Stupor Bowl. Bernie in 2020: https://draftbernie.org.
As for the Russian conspiracy premise, reporter Bill Palmer says his sources tell him that there are tapes of Trumpf and a few of his comrades admitting to treasonous activity with the rooskies last summer: http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/intel-sources-donald-trump-and-three-advisers-caught-on-tape-committing-russian-treason/2327/
RM is an unholy merging of Beck and McCarthy.
RM and the Democrats prove that xenophobia and hysteria run strongly under the surface of our collective subconscious and RM has harnessed our deepest fears while risking wwIII in the service of cheap Democratic politics.
Collectivelly, a subset of the American population have gone stark raving mad and the success of RM should be viewed in horror and mocked.
Rachel Maddow is about to jump the shark with her "Russia Russia Russia" obsession….
I only catch her show sporadically but I do admire most of her work.
Isn't it true that, most of the time, there are a series of revelations that build on each other and lead to "the smoking gun"?
Seems like the classic example would be Watergate. There were a series of discoveries that were revealed long before the "smoking gun" was found.
As to the possibility that the Russian Story has crowded out other stories that is a real problem.
Another problem would be if Democrats really did blame the election loss on the Russian interference. It wouldn't explain down ticket losses though. I haven't seen that much of this viewpoint – though I'm aware it's out there. this viewpoint is harmful to Democrats.
So I guess I agree with two of your points but not really the initial point.
Some of us are old enough to recall the Old Cold War and its instigators: The Mundt/McCarren/Nixon/McCarthy quartet whose 'A Generation of Treason' was the descriptor used to characterize The New Deal, as essentially treasonous.That is until that party line got lost in the generalized hysterical paranoia of full blown McCarthyism.
Please don't forget the part that Arthur Schlesinger, and two-bit American Philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr, and their 'vital centrist' ADA played in their cowardly capitulation to the manufactured Republican hysteria mongering!
The New Cold War has many powerful voices like R2P Zealot Samantha Power, Neo-Cons Victoria Nuland & Jeffrey Pyatt and Richard Holbrooke protege Susan Rice. Add the bloodthirsty Mrs. Clinton, and her various New Democratic allies like Rachel Maddow! Maddow is the New McCarthyite,whose career is modeled on the careers of political journalists: the Alsop Brothers,Westbrook Pegler, and celebrity hanger on, and professional loudmouth, not to speak of close friend of the oddest couple of all J.Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson, Walter Winchell. And the Hollywood contingent of gossip queen Hedda Hopper, and movie stars like Ginger Rogers and Adolphe Menjou, with Ronald Reagan playing a bit part.
This unfortunate woman has a serious OCD, and I'm not trying to be funny here. We all know someone that, as my grandmother used to say, you'd cross the street to avoid. She's gotten herself wound up and can't stop. More a medical situation than a political one. Meanwhile she does damage. A conspiracy theory nut with a T.V. Show. Oh my!
What does the fact that Maddow has lost it and the Democratic Party couldn't organise a piss-up in a pub have to do with what's really going on in the world?
Given ALL the things going on in the world, why is this worth your time and effort? So she's lost it? So Democrats couldn't organise a piss-up in a pub, much less front a resistance. We know that. The question is where are the stories that will help us figure out what to do next? Don't gloat, organise.
I became a Massachusetts republican in 1987 to help George HW Bush defeat Michael Dukakis. I took a lot of grief then. Once again I'm getting the same grief because I see no problem in Maddow's coverage of Russian interference in the election or exploring the possibility that the Trump campaign may have colluded with that interference.
The collusion issue must be rigorously pursued until clear evidence either clears or implicates Trump. I knew when Manafort was named Chaiman of the Trump campaign that the connection to Russia was way to obvious based on what was already known about his ties to Putin allies in the Ukraine.
I'm not about to stand by and let anyone gain the power of the presidency in this manner. If elections are not fair then American democracy is a sham. That should be every American's primary concern after every election and any inappropriate behavior must be thoroughly investigated. No mater what race it occurs.
The Washington Post saw Watergate connections everywhere too….
The fact that your reporter figured out to the minute and the % how much time Maddow spends on Russia story, to the relative exclusion of other stories, suggests that the Intercept is pretty obsessed itself.
People trying to squelch this story almost always point to the fact that there's no evidence. This is absurd. Detectives, whether the FBI or your local ones, don't regularly tell the public what the evidence is when they are in the middle of an investigation.
This reeks of desperation from the Intercept.
The most depressing thing about this article isn't even the article itself – it's so many of the reader comments below it. Yeah, I know–never read the comments.
It's tragic to see so many presumably sane people writing in defending Maddow, actually expressing naive belief in her insane version of Glenn Beck/Breitbart/Alex Jones lunacy. Watching the Democratic/liberal segment of the population meltdown into a deranged xenophobic mob devising their own Beckian blackboards of connections & links to a hysterical Dr. No/Blofeld version of Putin since the election has been the most bizarre political spectacle I've witnessed in over 40 yrs of being a US political junkie. Democrats have become seriously unhinged. EVERYTHING is Russia-linked, everything going bad for them, every terrible thing is Russia-linked. Now on a nightly basis they indulge in an orgy of Father Coughlin-like xenophobia and jingoism offered by a smart journo who's degenerated into an outright imperialist Glenn Beck psycho. She and her faithful viewers have become slavering hysterics full of xenophobic hatred. This is horrible for US politics and for the world. We're heading into very dangerous times and Maddow and her ilk will bear enormous responsibility for the consequences.
Sandra, it's REALLY refreshing to see people that aren't out of their damn minds.
Between the echo chambers of Facebook and Reddit, those same companies along with Google and YouTube now promoting censorship via biased "fact checkers", and the people who rail on Fox/Blaze/Breitbart but don't see the dozens of liberal mirrors it gets pretty depressing that most people have no business in or even talking about politics.
It'll be interetesting to see how this plays out, because with all the faux outrage, "scandal" fatigue, and unsupported narrative building… we're actually looking at 8 years, not the 2-3 with impeachment the most rabid scream about.
This comment, like the article, is pure garbage. The proof is there, more is coming, and you will never get the stink of treason off once it does. Whinge and pout all you like. You're a minority whose size diminishes every time the orange buffoon opens his mouth and your blind loyalty will be your demise. We still execute people for treason, you know.
Aaron Maté must be a paid shill for Russia. Clearly hates America.
New here, so I'm not familiar with the audience. That said… SURELY this must be sarcasm.
Greenwald's entire claim to fame is his Snowden reporting from a few years back. Under Greenwald's editorship The Intercept has gone well beyond healthy scepticism and into the realm of deliberate ignorance. This piece is an exercise in denial.
Such a shame a website funded to do investigative journalism lets its ideological bent dictate its agenda. You nailed it.
Awesome work Aaron watching all these so we don't have to haha
Bless your soul.
She has literally lost it. Just lost it.
What a damn shame cause she used to be so good
Too bad these people didn't show this much enthusiasm when it came to questioning the obviously impossible feats of physics that occurred on 911.
This dude Mad cow definitly ain't no truther.
How come these "people" never covered the investigation about 9/11 with such zeal?
This guy is definitely not a truther.
the MadCow… Someone should lead her out to the pasture and just leave her there. When are you people going to give up? There is no proof after 9 long months of trying… freaking snowflakes and whinebags
If you dont like the way RM covers her show, dont watch it. Its a pretty simple fix to your very simplistic issue. There has been an attack on the US, an act of war and you dont think she should cover it? Maybe she's covering it with such intensity, because others will not or dont have the same ability to put those connections together into a cohesive story, like Ms.Maddow does.
Maybe, some reporters are just lazy? Mr. Maté?
I'm a fan of her show! That's partly how this piece came about. Respectfully disagree that hacking emails & spreading fake news etc constitutes an "act of war."
Russia's military doctrine of hybrid warfare considers propaganda and cyber warfare part of the mix in confronting an adversary.
"escalate to include the use of a wider range of information warfare
capabilities, then jamming, corrupting, degrading, destroying,
usurping, or otherwise interfering with the ability of the propagandists
to broadcast and disseminate their messages could diminish
the impact of their efforts. Anything from aggressive enforcement of
terms of service agreements with Internet providers and social media
services to electronic warfare or cyberspace operations could lower
the volume—and the impact—of Russian propaganda."
It's all part of the low grade not-war war being waged.
Hacking AND using the hacked files to seek to affect the results or integrity of the electoral process of our country is subversion by a foreign power and an act of cyber war.
No whataboutery please
""The Russians have stumbled on how the nature of international contestation is changing and will be fought out in the 21st century. It's an age when direct kinetic warfare [the military's term of art for 'things that go bang'] is ridiculously expensive, in political but also economic terms," he says. "Instead, war will be fought out through a variety of other means, many which are covert, ambiguous, and so on. The Russians have, fortuitously for them, simply stumbled on a truth of the century.""
I apologize for stating the obvious since it is a bit rude. But if you don't like Mr. Mate's reporting, don't read it. It's a pretty simple fix when you have done no research on your own (and leave your critical reasoning to a news personality who gets paid $30K/day working for an enormous corporation whose sole goal is to maximize profits = Comcast).
I think it's odd to suggest that Mr. Mate is a lazy reporter. It's pretty clear that he and his research staff had to comb over a lot of material to present basic, empirical facts. That said, you have every right to disagree with the inferences he draws; but the data are real. Something that is sometimes (often?) missing in Ms. Maddow's "reporting."
I have nothing against her but one's critical thinking should never be handed over to a tv personality regardless of her credentials. I don't know if you've noticed, but the mass media (including MSNBC, NYTimes, Wash Post and the more obvious suspects) has repeatedly drummed up support for fear-based aggression and war using faulty evidence (fake facts?) and faulty analysis (Iraq, Libya, drone strikes, neocons, etc). If you decide to do some research on your own (i.e., not be lazy), I would be interested to hear if you find any military action that the mainstream outlets did not support at the beginning. That money could have been spent on health care and education — something that is desperately needed by actual, honest to God, U.S. citizens. Instead it is enriching weapons manufacturers. I don't think it's unreasonable to begin with a skeptical starting point and then seeing if irrefutable evidence can be provided given the agendas of different, powerful interests; and the individuals who have self-selected on wanting to move up these corrupt food chains (who often put self interest over self awareness and integrity).
If any Russia involvement was an "act of war", well then, the USA through its CIA, NSA, USAID, military, etc. is involved in acts of war, every day, around the world. The US is the most pervasive election corrupting country in the world, so the fake outrage is totally hypocritical.
The evidence for this Russia-Trump connection is growing stronger daily Rachel's coverage has been excellent on it, and much of the reason she has devoted so much time to the subject is that is has the potential to be the political scandal of the century. Moreover, the connections are very in-depth and require a lot of detailed explanation in order for the audience to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.
And I don't feel she has ignored other important topics either. She has covered the Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare, Trump's muslim ban, Gorsuch appoinment, special elections in GOP stronholds, gutting of State Dept., and Trump administration foibles and ineptitude, etc. It's just that the Russia connection is a much bigger story with potentially far-reaching consequences for our sovereignty as a nation.
I agree that there has been virtually no honest analysis for why the Dems blew the 2016 election, but that is largely because the Dem leadership is so blinded by their lust for corporate money that they just don't see their constituents anymore. Admittedly they're not quite as brazen and unapologetic about being complete shills for the corporations, but in their whoring for corporate money and attempts to scuttle Bernie's campaign, the Dem party leadership has:
1) largely alienated an entire generation of voters by vetoing their obvious candidate preference (Bernie) and issues (progressive single-payer, universal health care, free tuition at public universities, securing women's reproductive and other rights, curbing military spending, etc.)
2) in alienating Millennial voters, they handed a victory to Republicans and chose another 4 to 8 years in the political wilderness. Had the Dem party embraced Millennials and their issues (more about class and wealth inequality than left-right issues), they would have embraced the FUTURE of the party in a big way and enjoyed so much electoral success that they could have rendered the Republicans irrelevant for a generation, much as FDR did in the 1930s and 1940s.
3) The Dems could really have embraced progressive positions on energy and environmental policies and made America a frontrunner in climate change abatement and a leader in the alternative energy economy. Instead, they forfeited that future to please their old pal Hillary.
4) It has also cost us at least one seat, and possibly more, on the Supreme Court, and THAT failure will cost us all a great deal over the next generation.
The Dem leadership in DWS, Hillary and their minions did incredible damage to the entire country by ignoring and actively undermining the future of the party with Bernie and Millennials just so they could satisfy their corrupt dreams of becoming Republican Light.
We will all — Americans and the world at large — pay for this damage through increased wars and the effects of unabated climate change. Such a massive blunder with such high stakes, yet so easily preventable if they could just have seen the people through their lust for corporate money.
Nice analysis Joe.
Spot-on Joe. If Warren hadn't been cowed by Clinton cash into backing the Iron Pantsuit we'd have Warren as vice president. Even with the loss of over 900 seats nationwide across state and federal offices the dems show absolutely no interest in owning your correct analysis of their "complicity" in this historic loss.
Right on.
"The Intercept seems to be confusing actual reporting on a deeply important topic — the undermining of our sovereignty and our electoral process — with the marketing of a specious, fringe conspiracy theory. Anyone who actually watches Maddow's show knows that much of her reporting is gathered from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Buzzfeed, ProPublica, BBC and so on, and compiled into narratives, giving each story much needed context. Basically, The Intercept is accusing Maddow of being paranoid even though most of what she's saying is pulled from legitimate A-list sources." Bob Cesca, Daily Banter
It's almost like they oppose any disclosure that might reflect badly on Russia. So let's play doubting Thomas during the whole thing, since investigating on our own might, you know, confirm the findings of those documenting Russia's acts ofsubversion.
What a load of crap
Aaron maybe YOU need to change your DUMB & DUMBER hair style.. and not speak on a SUPERIOR person that is RM.
Russia connection to TRUMP and his team are on Target. Some will go to jail for it, while Trump may survive. Now to your barber and TURN OFF MSNBC .. AS THEY ARE THE ONLY REASON HE HAVE TO HAVE THIS COMICAL INCORRECT
When there's not a scintilla of evidence to support your argument, bring out the personal insults and caps lock. A technique used by all the greatest debators.
Leave my hair out of this, Joe.
Here's how you defeat white nationalists like Trump: By any means necessary. Go Rachel!!!
It sounds like a wanna-be journalists has his panties in a bunch because he is missing the biggest story of his life. But, you just keep on whining comrade.
I think its great, If you dont care,… Dont WATCH… f-ing simple right.
the endless threads on this not so improbable idea are coming EVERY DAY..
I had to suffer through YEARS of "OBAMA not BORN in USA" absolute BS from assH on FOx.. then the mainstream HAd to talk as well… W-TF.
She can report what she likes.. and this story is good.. and not fantasy
ShtPres is too buffoony to really coodinate… but cmon.. his stupid sons even say how much their in bed w russian dark cash…
oh but hold on for this breaking news….
OH BUT HES from KENYA!!!! there feel better
THIS is facinating…
if u thinkshe gets paid a lot …REDSTATE fools [ diks]
then look at O-rielys pay fing check… morons.
you flyover druids cant wait to get your new "king" to dump his royal crap on your poverty heads…hes ripping your democracy so fast your T2diabetes cant even keep up
Sadly for you, there is zero evidence of false equivalency when it comes to interference in other countries' elections.
(that's in reply to Joe)
This is a typical hit piece by the Intercept. It's actually embarrassing. Did Glenn help draft it. Anything to protect Snowden's protector. I support Snowden, but the Intercept's slavish devotion to Russia is downright strange. Why are you afraid of the TRMS coverage?
Understanding the Russian backing of our president and its efforts to influence our elections is vital to our democracy. Thank God Rachel is covering it. We need more coverage of Russian control over our government. This precious article feels like it was written by an earnest college newspaper. Let's not forget that V. Putin a dictator without any need for courts, free elections, free press or freedom of speech. The US has its own problems, but spare us the false equivalency.
Yeah not as if Rachel Maddow would operate as a mouth piece for the government or Comcast, or Hillary Clinton during the campaign. She is above reproach making her millions every year. Read somewhere that she is making 6 million a year. Not sure if that is exact figure….however interesting to think about.
"Thank God Rachel is covering it". Joe, didn't you mean Thank God Rachel (of the Rapture) is covering it?
Good! Someone needs to.
Maddow has certainly been obsessed with "fomenting" anti Russian sentiment. However so have Lawrence O'Donnell and Joy Reid…big time way back in the fall.
Would love to see those numbers that you ran for Rachel's show for Reid and O'Donnell. Over a six month period…back into the fall.
Every MSNBC was pounding the pavement for HRC during the campaign. Chris Matthews even went as far as making fun of Bernie "from Ben and Jerry country" and other snide remarks. Maddow, Hayes, Reid, O'Donnell basically ignored Bernie and the massive crowds he was pulling in during the campaign.
They all dropped the ball on the Debbie Wasserman Schultz chair of the DNC leaning hard for Hillary and using the DNC to do so story. After DWS stepped down the story was dropped by MSNBC…totally
Not a whisper out of any of them about Donna Brazille cheating for Hillary.
On the Russian issue every MSNBC host has the same Professor from Stanford talking about Russia. Malcolm Nance too. Never mix it up by having some opposing view about the evil evil Russia narrative (know they kill their journalist) however when it comes to middle east policy not sure whose actions have killed more…the U.S. or Russia. Think it might be the U.S.
Rachel has had Glenn's beloved Masha Gessen on selling the evil Russia narrative. Other host on MSNBC too. Masha made the rounds on MSNBC.
Yep Rachel was not a fair arbiter of the news before the campaign, during the campaign and now after. She promotes her own agenda and the way she thinks it should be rather than bringing us opposing views on Russia, Syria, Iraq etc….she falls in line. Good U.S. bad everyone else.
Where is Hillary and Flynt Mann Leverett, Colonel Andrew Bacevich, yes thank goodness Chris Hayes has Katrina Van Heudel on. There are plenty of other experts than the same old MSNBC analyst, contributors. Yawn…and oh so dangerous as far as really educating the public
Is The Intercept "obsessed with "fomenting" anti American sentiment when it investigates and reports on US actions in Syria,Iraq and Yemen?
People who are not stupid can differentiate between xenophobia directed at an entire population and criticism of a nation's government actions.
The Intercept, and Glenn Greenwald in particular have seen fit over the past months to effectively downplay the Russian connection. Perhaps because some on the Left see Trump"s "pro-Russian," tack as positive.
Well I do NOT. I see reasonable evidence of Trump's collusion, see the issue as potentially leading to impeachment and consider it a test of our political system. Not to mention, that the on-going nature of this connection is dangerous and destabilizing. Putin is an authoritarian, dangerous leader- pragmatic, corrupt and savvy. The recent Russian-US war of words is just that a war of words that serve the political interests of both Trump and Putin. Neither cares much about lives.
As far as Maddow's Russian coverage being excessive- she does not profess to be the NY Times- covering every issue equally. She covers issues she and her team deem worthy and where they feel there is a need or gap. Is she ratings motivated? Probably. But ratings are not a bad thing- unless they come from the rantings of a mad man.
If Trump should be impeached on this issue- If it forces disclosures of his tax returns that may be related and damning- Maddow has done the nation a great service. She obviously smells blood- and even if Trump and the Republican leadership succeed in suppressing the truth- she will have exposed enough hypocrisy to damn the entire system.
Nice explanation which expresses it very well. Thanks for that.
I strongly disagree. I think this is an important story that needs to be covered and no one else is covering it. Once again, Rachel is the only one talking about it. Just because it hasn't been proven definitively doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory. You will be proven wrong Aaron, and when you are, I hope you have the decency to issue an apology to Rachel.
Deal. I would love to be wrong on this one. If it turns out Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the election, I'll apologize. Same with many other suppositions — like whether Putin got Trump to pick Tillerson & Manafort, weaken the State Dept., and will use sex tapes to blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces from Europe.
But let's shut everybody up beforehand.
(how convenient for the concern trolls)
Want the truth? Spend a couple of hours with Gary Kasparov. There is nothing like hearing it from one of the most successful intellects in Russia. He has stated that Putin is the ultimate dictator and capable of all that he is accused. Lets not forget the murders that he has ordered as far reaching as U.S. soil. This is not a game. Kasparov is an eye witness. All of these comments are exactly what Putin wants. Be careful about the sideshow of party contempt. We may miss the obvious.
"Want the truth? Spend a couple of hours with Gary Kasparov. There is nothing like hearing it from one of the most successful intellects in Russia."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Kasparov is widely viewed as an unhinged crank. The fact that you take him seriously says everything about your hilarious gullibility.
Thank you Aaron for doing such an excellent analysis here. Maddow lost my trust about a year ago, and now she has lost my respect. Unfortunately many believe she is progressive due to her gender politics, but progressive means offering a clear eyed critique of all elites and their wealth and power accumulating activities..not just Republican ones. She instructs her audience, night after night, that party conflict and drama is "all there is to see.". I often wonder if she is deluded about the Democrats or whether her act is just for the ratings and the money.
Thank you, another, for pointing this out. Aaron's is an excellent analysis as you said. Great job, Aaron and the Intercept. I'm still having a hard time seeing how many people in this nation, including Rachel Maddow, have seemingly lost their minds. Every day it seems I have to shake myself out of shock. I knew that Trump, the Republicans, and the right wing in general we're going to be hard to deal with, but I had no idea that such a large number of people who ally with the Democrats would be so taken over by a self-delusional reactionary emotionalism that has put an incredibly thick fog over their ability to reason. I have no respect for Maddow's work anymore due to her output in the last year/year and a half. She has had a great fall, to my mind. It is tragic.
Oh look, the failing, fake news site, The Guardian, is creating more mass hysteria and Russia hating:
"One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. "They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion," the source said. "This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.""
Glenn will have to stay up all night to write a mocking hyperbolic snark infested article tonight that impunes the integrity of the Guardian for printing this Russophobic trash.
Won't somebody think of Russia's interests for a change?
Please wake up. Clinton losing had nothing to do with Russia. Despite all the claims, no proof has ever been presented to support this allegation, one that is clung onto only by dummies who can't accept that Clinton lost to a circus clown.
And Podesta's truth-revealing emails likely had no impact on the election in any case. The day Wikileaks released them the media buried the story, thanks to a conveniently 'discovering' an old tape of trump talking about abusing women.
Just accept it, dude. Thanks to a multitude of paid-for promises, Hillary had twice as much corporate money as trump. She had the uniform support of the media and political classes, which demonized and ridiculed her ill-informed opponent 24-7 for months on end.
And yet she still lost. I know it's hard for fake liberals to own that loss, having nominated Hillary and shouted long and loud about her supposed virtues. I know that. But own it you must.
And, incidentally, if the Guardian is your gold-standard for truth-telling, and you're outraged by outside interference in other countries' elections, have a read of this:
Left out of the article is #1, Russia's economy was already a train wreck #2 Yeltsin INVITED the advisers to come and help him with the continuing train wreck.
Telling someone to wake up is a rather stupid rhetorical device. Who the fuck are you?
I left my garden furniture out in the rain, but I'm pretty certain it was Russia!'s fault.
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts By Jim Sciutto, Pamela Brown and Eric Bradner, CNN
The European intelligence agencies detected multiple communications over several months between the Trump associates and Russian individuals — and passed on that intelligence to the US. The US and Britain are part of the so-called "Five Eyes" agreement (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), which calls for open sharing among member nations of a broad range of intelligence.
The communications are likely to be scrutinized as part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.
Rachel Maddow has fallen quite a bit, no longer the progressive voice that she was during the Bush administration … until the FBI concludes their investigation, the "Russia connection" doesn't have much leg to run with, so I try to avoid tripping myself up on the matter … also, `MSNBC, the country's most prominent liberal media outlet` ~ what a poor state of affairs when there aren't any actual liberal mainstream networks …
She has not fallen down. she needs to be theatrical for ratings but she is still
right on the fuekn TARGET !
>b "Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told."<b
Oh look, it's that British Intelligence Agency seeing a "Russia Connection" around every corner.
Oh look, FBI's Comey sees Russia connection around every corner by conducting investigation of election interference and possible connections between Trump campaign and Russia.
Oh those hysterical Intelligence agencies.
wait, don't tell me; no one is willing to go on the record or present their evidence.
You would never believe it anyway.
This is a conundrum for intelligence agencies. They have laws against releasing classified intelligence.Unless that is overridden by the US president. Fat chance of that.
hey have laws against releasing classified intelligence.
Moreover, the FBI is a law enforcement agency actively investigating the Trump campaign according to Comey.
I doubt they intend to issue a classified report.
Or, in other words, I suspect that if they haven't already impaneled a grand jury they will once they can find an appropriate venue. After Trump threw out Preet Bharara, the FBI may have to be more … discreet … before presenting evidence.
so you believe it *because* there is no evidence, *because* no one who makes the accusation will give their name?
It's mostly because they are leaking classified information on an ongoing investigation. Would you be stupid enough to expose yourself to criminal prosecution?
you're still avoiding the fact that the only reason you've offered for the unsubstantiated assertion being credible is that it remains unsubstantiated.
Russia's meddling in last year's US presidential election has been "fairly well-established", Rex Tillerson has said, following talks with his counterpart in Moscow.
The Secretary of State described Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 vote as a "serious issue" and "one that we know" about.
But Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov responded that "not a single fact has been confirmed".
Shhh ….
Don't don't say anything. Democrats might plot McCarthyite reprisals.
there is this thing called "dish net" .. if i get it, and also get a "52 inch flat screen led hdtv", i can watch MSNBC and other great shows all the time where official spokespeople will talk about serious issues that everyone needs to know about
first we get very credible reports from very credible sources about russian cyber from the very credible CIA
and now Rachel Maddow suggests we wait to get the final word on all of this from the absolutely politically neutral FBI
it's a great example of the media in action, it's hard to see how we can go wrong with this going forward
Yeah so weird that organizations that are authorized to collect intelligence might be the ones who present the evidence.
Perhaps we could depend on Glenn Greenwald's homemade brew of random snark quotes instead for evidence.
CIA presented unclassified conclusions, not the supporting evidence
and none of this took place in a legal proceeding under oath
Intelligence agencies conducting counterintelligence are at a disadvantage in respect to the evidence they collect because some of it is acquired through secret sources and methods that could cause people harm or alert an adversary to the fact that they are being spied upon.
Ultimately this will have to be resolved in some way if some evidence is to be made public in the results of an FBI or Congressional investigation.
The FBI FISA Order for Carter Page INCLUDES Paul Manafort and Roger Stone TARGETING All Subject Communications. They Represent The Very Such Political and Economic Elites (and not so elites) Populatinjg the NSAs Hammer Supercomputer Project Dragnet Database. The Same NSA Hammer Supercomputer Project Dragnet Database that we already have copies of in "evidence pending" Files at the FBI where those 47 Hard Drives and 600,000,000 Pages of evidence are stored. Those are the same 47 Hard Drives and 600,000,000 pages that CIA Contractor Dennis Montgomery Received Immunity fo Signing Sealing an Delivering to the FBI and US Attorneys Office in the District of Columbia Office Two Years Ago.
The FBI FISA Order identifies as the FBI the lead agency to be AIDED BY the NSA CIA and may be shared broadly within the Adminstration. A Few On That List Include: Susan Rice. John Brennan. Admiral Rogers. Jim Clapper. Other Senior Administration Officials.
That Puts Essentially Everyone in Obamas Administration, The Transitional Administration and even a few in Trumps Administration on Future White House
Witness Lists. Boy if those (R)s are smart they should call Susan Rice to Testify
First to soften up their other constitutional oath challenged (D)s like Clapper, Brennan, Yates, Lynch and Rogers.
Anyone here think our beloved (R)s can Resist Calling Susan Rice BACK to Testify?
Clinton got 3 million+ more votes & lost three states by several thousand votes — hardly a "seismic loss."
Why is the Intercept so in the tank with the GOP & Putin???
the russian threat could be overstated .. but it should not be underestimated
Rachel Murdock is just one of many tools in the toolbox wrt russia
She is an amazing strong and brilliant woman in news television. We need more minds like her looking out for the American people. We are very bless to have people like her exposing real news when no many others are brave enough to do the same.
I am so sick of Maddow and the rest of the MSDNC prime time crew, which is tuned in every night by some one I live with, that I finally bought noise canceling ear muffs. Ahhh.
I chuckled at that.Great idea for when Trump comes on the television.
She doing it because so much of the media is blowing it off or downplaying the issue. It's a problem that needs to be resolved. A full investigation that we can see the results of. I'll come back in a year and see if you still think she was being pathetic.
because 5 months of an investigation/circle is only sufficient to conclude that the Russians must have hacked the election, because . . . there's an investigation?
here, let's have another round; who wants an investigation?
that was meant to be, "investigation/circle jerk…."
– i demand an investigation!
– me too, there has to be a thorough investigation of all the facts!
– the American people deserve to know the truth!
i think we're all clear on the investigation part now.
Rachel Maddow is mentally ill and should be fired. Her McCarthyite rants have increased the chances for nuclear war with Russia and turned her liberal fans into far-right cold warriors, represented best by Lindsay Graham and John McCain. She has helped increase the chances for nuclear war and an end to the species, just because of her infantile hate and delusions of grandeur regarding corrupt liberals.
Unfortunately Maddow does not see Russians lurking behind every corner, she missed Hillary and John Podesta. Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:
And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank, Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:
Everybody accepts that politicians take money. The charge against Mr. Trump is that his team cooperated with the Russians without taking any money. This suggests the Russians may have some compromising material on Mr. Trump and may continue to get favorable treatment without spending anything. That would set an unfortunate precedent. In a democracy, everyone should have an equal opportunity to buy politicians. What Mr. Putin is doing is the political equivalent of market rigging.
i suspect that the "cooperation" was intended to cut Trump and Crewe in on the action. and there is certainly a precedent for that.
The uranium deal required the approval of several US agencies and the Canadian government. The Clinton's should have never been running the foundation when Hillary was in office, but Hillary was not capable of approving the deal by herself.
That always get left out.
Wait til she figures out that Reince Preibus is the illegitimate son of Vlad Putin .
Turns out that Vlad has been pulling all the strings at the RNC for a long time…LOL
I could picture Ms. Maddow referring to herself as the "smartest person on TV", and maybe a few staunch lefties might agree, but I doubt any neutral observer watching this hack spin and twist her way into agreeing with one side of the political equation on 99% of the issues….going back years……would say anything like that. She's just another talking head who has figured out how to monetize our need for political drama.
and no one really takes Fox News seriously either.
GCHQ Involved with Trump spying all along, of course they only stumbled onto the conversations by chance, then continued them for 6 months "Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the "Five Eyes" spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.
It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US"
Judge Napalitano was right. Ever member of VIPS agrees Five Eyes can spy on and run pysops on one anothers domestic populations and elected leaders to get around respective constitutional restrictions.
CIA Agent / State Department Official Larry Johnson British GCHQ was probably tapping Trump for Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhkcU1Ls0fs
Just to remind you….Ten years ago, a young Mandarin specialist at GCHQ, the government's surveillance centre in Cheltenham, did something extraordinary. Katharine Gun, a shy and studious 28-year-old who spent her days listening in to obscure Chinese intercepts, decided to tell the world about a secret plan by the US government to spy on the United Nations.
She had received an email in her inbox asking her and her colleagues to help in a vast intelligence "surge" designed to secure a UN resolution to send troops into Iraq. She was horrified and leaked the email to the Observer. As a result of the story the paper published 10 years ago this weekend, she was arrested, lost her job and faced trial under the Official Secrets Act.
The memo from Frank Koza, chief of staff at the "regional targets" section of the National Security Agency, GCHQ's sister organisation in the US, remains shocking in its implications for British sovereignty. Koza was in effect issuing a direct order to the employees of a UK security agency to gather "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises". This included a particular focus on the "swing nations" on the security council, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, "as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters".
wait . . . Canada has spies?
Yeah, because it's so unusual for Western intelligence agencies to continuously monitor the communications of Russian operatives.
why is the intercept blowing putin? maybe because he's got snowden?
that's how they get you, glenn.
first they're nice and helpful. "sure i'll protect your buddy, send him over!"
later it's "i got your buddy. ever want to see him again?"
I know! I personally and sick of any media that doesn't fall in line with the war machine. It just makes me so mad!
About it tell me. I remember when brain dead group think got my employer to change the name of French fries to freedom fries during the early part of the Iraq War. The nonstop, bi-partisan push to that disastrous war led people to not think critically, and it helps that many people in both parties don't think much already. Many of them have authoritarian mindsets and have to be told what to think. Many of our allies have horrific records (Colombia, Saudi Arabia, etc.). The media and the two parties can't be bothered to notice or to give a damn though. They also can't be bothered to take not of our military actions which slaughter massive amounts of civilians all the damn time. Nope, cause Putin, Russia, freedom fries, boo!
Erin Cunningham ? @erinmcunningham
CENTCOM says strike near Taqbah accidentally killed 18 Syrian Democratic Forces fighters on April 11. Had been identified as ISIS position.
6:09 AM – 13 Apr 2017
Russia has reportedly dispatched drones to the area to confirm Syria's reports. The Russian military said that it has no information confirming the reports of death as a result of the US-led coalition's strike. "The Russian Defense Ministry does not possess information confirming reports of deaths and the type of the destruction as a result of the US-led coalition's bombing near Deir ez-Zor."
As we detailed earlier, the Syrian General Staff said that the US-led coalition struck an ISIS depot storing chemical weapons in Deir ez-Zor on Wednesday, poisoning and killing several hundred people, including civilians.
As SputnikNews reports, the Syrian military said that this fact proves that terrorists possess chemical weapons. "The jets of the so-called US-led coalition launched a strike at about 17:30-17:50 [local time, 14:30-14:50 GMT] on a Daesh warehouse where many foreign fighters were present. First a white cloud and then a yellow one appeared at the site of the strike, which points at the presence of a large number of poisonous substances. A fire at the site continued until 22:30 [19:30 GMT],"
The Syrian army yet again denied possessing chemical weapons. According to the Syrian General Staff, the US-led coalition's strike killed several hundred people, including civilians. Hundreds were poisoned as a result of the strike on Daesh's headquarters and depot with chemical weapons.
"This confirms that Daesh and al-Nusra terrorists possess chemical weapons and are capable of using, obtaining and transporting it," the document said.
Furthermore, if true, the US coalition just did exactly what Russia has claimed occurred in the initial chemical attack (that prompted President Trump's "Tomahawk" torrent).
The Russian Defense Ministry said the day after the initial chemical weapons release that an airstrike near Khan Shaykhun was carried out by Syrian aircraft, struck a terrorist warehouse that stored chemical weapons slated for delivery to Iraq. Of course, the propaganda battle is not over so what we need now is some YouTube clip to 'prove' what the US coalition did.
I've always wondered if you can be a complete idiot, a court jester fool and crazy insane at the same time. Now I know it's real and people like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow have it… they have what's called a 'Liberal Left Mental Disease'.
There's no pharmaceuticals that can't help them, but you can mock them, because they're asking for it.
Liberals and Democrats are a bunch of morons. Rachel Maddow is the lead idiot. There is no collusion with Russians just the crybabies who can not accept they lost, running with this BS lie to make there sorry asses feel better. You want collusion look at the clinton foundation
i must agree with another poster here that the "graphs" are a non-starter
good data presentation is apparently not a priority for the "highly social verbals" who currently seem to dominate the news websites
let them eat data dashboards
Like Jesus said—- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Who was this Jesus ?
Maddow is just another "WORKING GIRL " .
A bit pricey !
hunnee Wretchell Maddcow iz an ensult too profeshumnal wurking gurlz effurwear don u no.
Three key figures in the Trump campaign have registered as foreign agents. Paul Manafort (former campaign manager) Carter Page (former foreign policy advisor) and Michael Flynn (former National Security Advisor). Manafort has admitted taking payments from Russian Oligarchs as well as people tied directly to Putin. Carter Page was surveilled with a FISA warrant, and Michael Flynn was a paid lobbyist for the Turkish government. That isn't concerning to you? None of these people had any connection to Trump before the election. Where did they come from? Why did he choose them? The fact that you are intimating that this may all be a wild goose chase is assinine. And the trolls commenting on this are bringing down the median IQ of the country.
Great work. Please keep exposing this corporate whore. Unless challenged, her lies and misdirection will stick and we end up with wwwiii. Or, at best, a never-ending cycle of Clintons and bushes
Agreed. Great article.
Truth is treason in the age of deception.
I hope Maddow stays on the Russia topic as long as it has legs.
It's astonishing just how many ties there are between the Russians & the Trump campaign. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me to see Spicer suddenly start speaking Russian; he does seem to have a lot of trouble getting his points across in American :-D
I'm an old guy so I'm having trouble remembering just when collusion & treason stopped being a big deal.
Something tells me if it were Hillary Clinton who was suspected of collusion with Putin to influence American elections & 1/2 her staffers had close ties & friendly relations with the Politburo, it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand
Well I'm middle aged and don't remember when critical thinking and skepticism towards the mic's transparent propaganda stopped being a big deal.
Something tells me that if so many people weren't so desperate to ignore their lying eyes then we would actually be able to focus on the actual rightwing agenda being constructed in Washington DC. But no, that's no important. Just Russia.
"I'm an old guy so I'm having trouble remembering just when collusion & treason stopped being a big deal."
Take heart Mr D. Broadcasting unsubstantiated allegations of collusion and treason every night for six months against US Persons who have never been charge with let alone prosecuted or convicted of any such crimes is still a big deal. They're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
"Something tells me if it were Hillary Clinton who was suspected of collusion with Putin to influence American elections & 1/2 her staffers had close ties & friendly relations with the Politburo, it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand"
According to DARPA its just good policy to ignore unfamiliar voices in your head.
There's a uniformity of language being used by "bots" that this post emulates. Has the same tone and language as a commercial. I know it's vague, but there's something creepy about it.
When in doubt, and I mean even any iota of uncertainty – accuse them of being a russian plant.
– accuse them of being a russian plant.
Perovskia atriplicifolia, commonly called Russian sage, is a nice flowering herbaceous perennial plant and subshrub. Not invasive either, something that might be appreciated in the current, um, climate.
" he does seem to have a lot of trouble getting his points across in American "
hunnee mi spellink leevs a lot too bee deesired butt teh languaj i speek heer iz Inglish knot Murkin don u no.
1: American (North-Latin-South); 2: RBS (Russia British Scandinavia); 3: EUROPE AFRICA; 4: AIOP (Arab India Oceania Pacific). RBS: —-
Forget it, Jake, it's MSDNC town.
When you're paid $30,000 a week like Maddow is, you do what your corporate pay masters tell you to do and focus on what they tell you to focus on.
Forget it, Jake, it's MSDNC town.
well played.
Regarding the RT/Wikileaks connection and the way you discredit it by attacking the timeline, you are glaringlly omitting the fact that Julian Assange works for the Kremlin site RT.com. He is paid by the Russians and that's no theory. Here is a link to his show. Enjoy!
Yeah, Larry King and Ed Schultz (formerly MSNBC), too! Everyone who's ever been on or had a RT show is a Putin stooge!
Everyone who's ever been on or had a RT show is a Putin stooge!
It's the dem party version of Six Degrees of Kevin's Bacon. Or whatever. :-s
what does that make all the people who appear on MSNBC?
Former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura is Rolling Out a New RT Show Soon
If MSNBC was state funded like RT, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's apples vs. oranges.
nonsense. the assertion made was that anyone who publicly presents information does so at the behest of a venue that pays for their appearance, that the information is made to conform to the will or interest of that venue.
Palin "I can see Russia from my house." Left or right it was Russia. Fix US and Russia will be less of a danger or influence. When we run Bush II, Palin, Hillary or Trump for high office we should look in the mirror first.
Just because one can see Russia from her house doesn't mean that she can *see* Russia at all. Trump sees Russia as he tried to build his new house in Russia, preferably a Siberian Tundra suite with a view of Palin's backyard.
Now if we could just get Putin a nice place at Mar-a-Lago, he could miss a rough winter and with dual habitat we could be less likely to make the big mistake of WWIII.
When you have a president who has been the main hawker of presidential conspiracy theories for the past 8 years, you should expect the same from the media and also from the President himself. Even since his inauguration he has accused his predecessor of tapping his phones. He calls our most venerable news institutions "fake news", the ones that have won numerous Pulitzer Prizes. Trump's involvement with people with ties to Russia is unprecedented so with regard to this Russian connection and media coverage, please lead, follow or get out of the way. If you have a problem with her reporting please debunk any of the facts Rachel Maddow has uncovered instead of trying to throw her off the case. Her ratings increase shows the American people find her to be credible and have mostly lost faith in the President. Watch any late night program and you will see that too. I wonder what the Intercept would have reported at the beginning of Watergate while the Washington Post was reporting the "therealnews" about conspiracy and cover-up. I have new stomach for conspiracy theories myself. What Rachel is reporting is facts and credible theories.
When you have a president who has been the main hawker of presidential conspiracy theories for the past 8 years, you should expect the same from the media….
so with regard to this Russian connection and media coverage, please lead, follow or get out of the way.
You are why the Democratic Party has become a smoking pile of rubble at all levels — federal, state and municipal — and will continue to be so. Don't take my word for it; see what the Democrats of rust belt states like Ohio have to say. WaPo: Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say:
Democrats have fallen completely out of touch with America's blue-collar voters.
"It doesn't matter how much we scream and holler about jobs and the economy at the local level. Our national leaders still don't get it," said David Betras, [a county] party chair.
The party's national leaders have focused on decrying Trump, opposing his Supreme Court pick and tying his administration to Russia. That approach — trying to defeat Trump solely by attacking him and his policies — already has failed once, many at the dinner said.
… they think few are talking about issues that really matter to people in places such as Youngstown: Stagnant wages, vanishing jobs and sputtering economies. Even the Democrats' recent success in blocking Trump's attempt to repeal President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act matters little in the face of those core interests, local party leaders said. And unless the party begins addressing those blue-collar issues, they said, there will be real and dire consequences in states like theirs….Betras was seeing GOP yard signs suddenly popping up. During the primaries, he learned that 18 of his own Democratic precinct captains had crossed party lines to vote for Trump. Some areas had to print extra Republican primary ballots just to keep up with the demand.
…Lou Gentile, 37, was among the Ohio casualties in November. A rising local Democratic star, he lost his state Senate seat in a district struggling with coal mining declines in the Ohio Valley.
"I'm worried about the party," Gentile said. "If anything good comes out of this last cycle, I hope it's that our national leaders finally get the message about what's going on in places like this. We have to go back to basics — jobs, wages, the things that actually make a difference to people out here."
Maddow and all of you need to get a clue and start pounding on the *economic* positions that will win — and be seen fighting for them — or get used to more losing.
" Soldiers are blunt, stupid animals used in foreign policy " . H. Kissinger
As long as conspiracy theories are the news of the day…I think Maddow is vying for the Press Secretary position in the inevitable (in Maddow's mind) Clinton Administration (in Clinton's mind) that will directly follow the Trump Administration. At the end of the day it's utter insanity!
Maybe she's a Russian agent. Certain kinds of 'news' coverage has to discredit the whole theory.
Mr. Maté, are you envious of Maddow's success? If not, why are you vested in pulling her down? Do you expect her to become some sort of public service agent for the Democratic party? May I suggest you yourself cover all those topics that you have determined Maddow neglects? Perhaps then you'll have some business of your own to mind, rather than meddling in something that it is clear the public wants, if we're to believe in Maddow's newly acquired high ratings.
I'm actually a big Maddow fan, I've watched her show for more than 4 years. You'll see in the piece that I call her "a supremely gifted journalist" whose "influence is well-earned. She frequently brings pivotal national attention to overlooked stories, such as the poisoning of Flint, Michgan's water supply." I just take issue with ascribing the election result to the wrong reason (Russia) and pushing hawkish conspiracies to back it up, all the while overlooking Trump's actual policies.
Glenn Greenwald was once friends with Rachel Maddow, writing a blurb for her book and appearing on her show. Not any more. His Twitter TL makes his more recent disdain abundantly clear.
It can hardly be argued that Greenwald is simply "envious" of Maddow or her ratings. Indeed, if anything, he seems to disdain her more for it, for promoting this hysteria.
Indeed, if anything, he [GG] seems to disdain her more for it, for promoting this hysteria.
Apparently someone previously reasonable somehow changed.
I just take issue with ascribing the election result to the wrong reason (Russia) and pushing hawkish conspiracies to back it up, all the while overlooking Trump's actual policies.
Exactly how many of Trump's actual policies did you hammer in this article?
Further, given that several Trump associates have lied to the Senate or other government officials about their contact with Russian agents, how is this a "hawkish conspiracy."
"True" turns theory into reality. Several people participating in a common activity telling identical lies turns this "true" into a true conspiracy.
She's the embodiment of Dems, defeated, bloodied, breathing their last, hurling verbal assault before the final breath.
We should revive the old names: Whigs and Know Nothings
Who cares why Democrats lost? How is that in any way "news"?
Rachel is going to cause nuclear war with Russia Hysteria, so we better talk about how to save the horrible Dem party? LOL omg Everyone has lost their minds.
We have climate change, and about 100 major worthwhile news stories each day that could be covered. Is this something new?
We watched OJ crap for 2 years NON STOP, while a myriad of stories went untouched… like um, the WHOLE WORLD…. 500,000 Iraqis dead to sanctions and continuous bombings, while we watch Marcia Clark get a new hair style.
The author wants MSNBC, as the "leading liberal (HA) news (HA) outlet", to focus on why Hillary should be president? Seriously?
About Russia…. yea, hysteria is no good, but is that new? There are SERIOUS problems with regards to the person who can NUKE the world, and his dealings with Russian oligarchs… going back DECADES. Complaining about such coverage, which details specific info pertaining to obscure elements like the Cypress Bank or whatever…. well, sorry, pick your poison.
I don't care for MSNBC, or ANY of the so-called "news" programs… it's corporate crap, which will always act at the behest of the power players regardless of what anyone says or does about it. Rachel and Chris H. run some good stories with some good guests on occasion, but eh…. hero worship is for the lazy.
The US main stream media sucks, and has sucked forever. Duh!?!
Climate change is ignored, the president is a lunatic who is OWNED by many, including Russian actors, and the media is controlled entirely by a myriad of power actors including the MIC…. one can hold all of those things in their head at once… mostly because they are all true.
Democratic Party? Who cares. They lost credibility 40+ years ago, if they ever had it. Pining for Rachel to cover something so stupid in place of something that gives her ratings is naive…. but with regards to "Russia-gate" crap… throwing it all into the basket of "fake hysteria" is also stupid. You can hope all you want, but with such a horrible US media, this is like 7th level delusional 'hope'.
Not sure what is going on with some independent media types that I support, but too many of them are bending over backwards to ignore ANYTHING 'Russia", at an energy level that is somewhat baffling. No, not just 'ignore', but to purport that it 'should' be ignored at ALL costs. Seriously? The FBI has been investigating some serious matters, but Rachel paying attention is the big problem? LOL
I wish I lived in a nation with more people who can think beyond 7th grade level critical thinking. But I don't. So we argue over the color of paint we use on a burning house. Maturity is lacking, but sinking to the lowest level in order to complain, is mimicking the same immaturity. Sad.
Why should the proof off 'collusion?' with Russia be any more detrimental to Trump than to all the Political Whore of Israel?
First, the positives. I think Maddow is on point with her coverage of Russia. The whole issue of Russia's cyber efforts to influence American politics is a tough one for many on the left. On the one hand we have large numbers who favor what we used to call "detente" with Russia and those in its orbit. It is difficult for these people to tilt away from closer, more friendly relations, to a more skeptical, even confrontational, posture.
Rachel 's coverage reflects an awareness of what the real issues may be. Russia did not tamper with the vote count. Russia did – and if it wasn't Russia it sure as hell was somebody – try to heavily influence the social media element of the presidential election. This was happening at least as far back as the night of the Iowa Republican caucus. I watched on Twitter as pro-Trump trolls were actively ginning up use of the "LyinTed" hashtag to get it on the top ten – and then to number one – on Twitter's trending list. These were not zealous volunteers. These people were gainfully working for someone.
The circumstantial evidence that people like Manafort, Page, Stone and others had strong ties to Russian entities is further justification for Rachel's robust coverage of links between these people and Trump's family and Trump business interests. Roger Stone literally predicted the Wikileaks document dump from the DNC hacking.
On the negative side, Rachel is too prone to over-hype of interesting, but by no means decisive, stories. Her opening monologues are often brutal in that they fill time with too much speculation without getting to the facts and the real story. Although not about Russia, the night she presented two-pages of a ten year old Trump tax return was so overblown in its significance that Maddow appeared foolish for overplaying what she actually had.
I am inclined to let those skeptical of Russia and what it did and what it orchestrated though third-parties, room to present their case no matter how speculative. The Russians are big boys and have a lot of resources to defend themselves if they are truly innocent.
This coming from someone who couldn't tell her own parents she was gay , ( they in her in her College Newspaper) or that she slept with her first boss ,( she was doing the Landscaping started sleeping with her boss lady) your hypocritical to everything you stand for!
Exactly how is this germane? I suppose that sometimes we ought to keep our "intellectual" interactions inside our own heads, where they are undoubtedly germane.
Yes, I'm a RM fan. She is the only place of news from which I find surcease
Ms. Maddow is doing an excellent job sowing the seeds of distrust against the Russians. Mr. Trump has already started pivoting to a tougher stance on Russia and in short order, anyone criticizing Trump will be accused of being a Russian stooge. Every good fascist knows you must have both an internal enemy and an external enemy so that people will willingly relinquish their freedom to seek protection. A nuclear war with Russia is a price Mr. Trump is probably willing to pay to achieve absolute power.
Ms. Maddow has a small but important role to play in creating the political climate to make this possible.
Not necessity, not desire – no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything – health, food, a place to live, entertainment – they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.
Friedrich Nietzsche
lots of issues here but lets start with the fact that Maddow is now the MOST WATCHED show on cable(news) flying past the "vacationing" Bill O'Reilly over at fox. That in itself is reason enough for her to continue doing exactly what the writer hopes she abandons…though it isnt clear what his reasons are….though i suspect he is looking for excuses to explain the escalating head scratching behavior of the puppet.
fine to carry the water for the regime but please not so overtly hypocritical!
just why should the Maddow audience abandon these stories if they are convinced or want more revaluation regarding their concerns that russia has undermined our government?
because Mate says so?
there is more than enough smoke to justify Maddow and frankly disheartening to see Mate doesn't understand that…or worse.
now.i am sure this article gives the daily red meat to its usual suspects and the comments prove it…but i for one applaud Maddow (though i stopped watching MSNBC YEARS AGO) if for no other reason but the hope that she plays a part in getting her viewers to vote for progressive democrats .
and while i understand that fails among the true believers here who are motivated by the ever increasing size of the cross their savior Glenn Greenwald must bear..but.hey TO F'IN BAD!
just why should the Maddow audience abandon these stories if they are convinced or want more revaluation regarding their concerns that russia has undermined our government?
The more salient question is, "Just why does Maddow's audience continue to eagerly consume this swill, absent any substantial evidence that would make it into a competent middle-school civic term paper?"
lots of issues here but lets start with the fact that Maddow is now the MOST WATCHED show on cable(news) flying past the "vacationing" Bill O'Reilly over at fox. That in itself is reason enough for her to continue doing exactly what the writer hopes she abandons….
yeah, i dunno that i'd go around bragging about out Fox-ing Fox News. but it is interesting to me that so many Dem supporters now openly advocate for competing for Loudest, Most Inane Shouting Award. if that's what you call winning, there's your first clue that you have bigger problems to address.
i for one applaud Maddow … if for no other reason but the hope that she plays a part in getting her viewers to vote for progressive democrats.
i believe she's made it clear that that is NOT her objective.
The one thing Spicer said that was based on true facts: Maddow sees a Russian conspiracy in Trump's salad dressing….
Excellent critique Aaron,
As Chris Hedges has repeatedly explained, the "liberal class", as he calls them, are merely tolerated by elites for their service to the wider establishment. This typically takes the form of attacking the "real" left and acting as gatekeepers of true progressive values but also by perpetuating at least some of the key aspects of establishment propaganda (case in point).
Keep up the good work.
That is because she is on to something…our election was stolen!
I have one small complaint about Rachel Maddow: sometimes she's a bit too dramatic, but this is TV where the competition is intense.
On the other hand, I have two substantial complaints about the writer of this piece: 1) the writer is carrying water for the Clinton "Status quo" branch of the Democratic party, and 2), it diminishes the importance of the Russian allegations.
1) — The Clinton branch of the Democratic Party zealously wants to influence the voters to support the status quo, ignoring the clear message of the 2016 elections: that the electorate wants progressive change that acknowledges existing problems.
2) — The Russian allegations are important to American election trustworthiness. The implication that Maddow is spending too much time on the Russian allegations does a disservice to the importance of the issue. Your piece detracts from the seriousness the story deserves and lets the Trump team conceal grave matters. Let the FBI do its work free of any smoke screen.
But you've gotta write about something, right?
'Carrying water for the Clinton "Status quo" branch of the Democratic party '
The Clinton's have been and continue to be a core element of the Democratic Neoliberal establishment. The last DNC chair – Wasserman Shultz' – was actively campaigning or organising behind the seems in favour of Clinton and against Sanders. A fact further confirmed by none other than the DNC leaks that may have been (though no evidence whatsoever has been offered yet to support it) revealed in part as a result of a Russian Op.
This fact was further illustrated once those revelations of Wasserman Shultz' conspiring against Sanders-despite bieng obligated to be neutral as DNC chair -was immediately appointed by Clinton to head up her campaign after she was removed from the DNC chair following the bloody revelations from the DNC leak!!
Not to mention the fact that both Clinton and Obama intervened to oppose Keith Ellison – an actual progressive – from bieng elected to the DNC and pushed Tom Peres of all people into thay position.
Where you asleep during the last 25 years? What progressive change have the Clinton's ever represented? Or Obama for that matter. Furthermore, even if completely accepted without evidence, the allegations at best are that emails exposing fraud, hypocrisy and potential criminality on the part of Clinton and Co, we're obtained by Russian intelligence then passed on via an intermediary to WikiLeaks.
The US has literally helped rig elections in Russia, supported a military coup there and backed a rank corrupt Boris Yeltsin – who incidentaly appointed Putin – who was intern supported by the US until he opposed Iraq invasion 2003.
Get some prespective mate. Not to mention historical context.
But hey, I suppose you've got to write something down, right?
1) wtf? It's Maddow carrying the water for the Clinton Democrats. The following questions all have the same answer for Maddow:
-why are there still 29 million people uninsured despite Obamacare?
-Why have the the 188 million people with job-based health insurance seen their premiums, deductibles and copays skyrocket despite Obamacare?
-Why do 31% of Americans delay or skip needed medical treatment despite Obamacare?
-Why have wages stagnated while productivity has increased for fifty years?
-Why are we in the period of the greatest income and wealth inequality since the Gilded Age, even though the Democrats have held the White House for 16 of the last 24 years?
-Why has life expectancy actually declined for low-income women and stagnated for most people in the bottom half of the income distribution, even though the Democrats have held the White House for 16 of the last 24 years?
-Why do we seem incapable of spending even one lousy year without finding some excuse to bomb the living shit out of swarthy people somewhere if not outright invade another country, or at least pour millions of dollars into corrupting their elections so that we get what we want, even though the President can now do all of those things on a personal whim, and the defining whims have been Democratic whims for 16 of the past 24 years?
-Why did no banksters go to jail after stealing all our money, playing baccarat with it, and crashing the economy, even though the Democrats held the White House for 8 years?
-Why can cops still shoot people generally and especially people of color whenever they feel like it?
Rachel Maddow: Oh my God, THE ROOOOOOOOSSSSKIIIIEEEEES!!!!!!!!
There is nothing remotely "progressive" about the Russia scare bullshit at all. Its net result will be more war, more surveillance and restricted civil liberties.
Thanks Rachel!
I have two substantial complaints about the writer of this piece: 1) the writer is carrying water for the Clinton "Status quo" branch of the Democratic party,
Of course he is. That's why he wrote,
Democrats have avoided constructive introspection on their seismic election loss by blaming the Kremlin.
Your piece detracts from the seriousness the story deserves and lets the Trump team conceal grave matters.
And Maddow's near mono-mania on Russia has meant a dearth of coverage – one might even say, the concealment – of Trump's cabinet picks, the anger consuming Republicans at their own town hall meetings, the rape of the EPA (among other agencies that have been long-term targets of Republican destruction), the Gorsuch SCOTUS nomination, Muslim ban, Obamacare repeal, deportations/immigration crackdown, the war on science, increasingly aggressive TSA searches/demands at borders, State Dept budget cuts, military operations in Iraq/Yemen/Syria, increasing military spending, ongoing efforts at every level of government to disenfranchise voters. Really the list is very long and getting longer, but yeah, we need more marination in all things Russia. That's what's going to fix everything. :-s
Some people are obsessed with the Russia issue. Establishment Democrats are using it to blame Russia for Clinton's loss, despite the fact that doing this turns them into McCarthyite Republicans and pushes us back toward another cold war, putting the Earth at a higher risk of nuclear war.
As Noam Chomsky recently said before the missile attack, the one thing that was positive about Trump (actually two things, he opposes those awful trade deals like the TPP) was that he wanted to play nice with Russia, and these asshole Democrats are attacking him for that. I understand that we don't want other countries undermining our elections, but considering that the U.S. goes beyond undermining elections in other countries and that U.S. elections are a scam anyway — in this case, 3d parties shut out of debates and censored from commercial media, massive amounts of money required to have a chance to win, political parties that are more like gangs, etc. — this is a rather minor issue.
The core of Rachel Maddow's being is progressive politics, but in the past years only as it is expressed through intense, obsessive – and often disguised – promotion of the interests of Hillary Clinton.
Though it is probably sensible not to allow the Trump administration successfully to distract public attention away from an investigation of his and/or his associates' possible complicity with Russian hacking of Democratic communications, Maddow's almost irrational obsession with this subject is a direct result of her intense personal antagonism toward those she believes wrecked Clinton's chances to be president: the Russians, James Comey and Bernie Sanders.
Her hatreds are often disguised by what she ignores, bypasses, or gives only mandatory lip service to. The unscrupulous behavior of DNC officials in trying to suppress the primary chances of Sanders she gave little attention to.
A typical approach is her recent appraisal of of "Berniecrat" James Thompson's close loss to a Republican in Kansas. She spent minutes bragging about the significance of a Democrat doing that well in a solidly red state but gave only one sentence to the fact that the (Clinton-dominated) structure of the Democratic Party gave no appreciable assistance to
Bernie-supported Thompson. No expressed indignation, or even common sense evaluation, that DNC support might have enabled the Democrat to win.
I am not the only one immediately to have recognized her slant in this. "The Nation" devoted a headline to it.
If one begins to see Rachel Maddow as a Hillary Clinton shill, i.e, an undeclared biased and passionate advocate, almost all of her public demeanor falls into place.
I have lost all respect for Rachel Maddow and also think the Democratic party has gone off the deep end on this Russiaphobia debacle!
Maddow really has become a 21st Century McCarthyite -seeing 'reds under every bed."
Unlike Joy Reid (who's not all that bright) Maddow is intelligent and educated enough to know better, which quite frankly calls her character into question.
In no particular order:
(1) Maddow isn't the only one saying that Russia's election-interference was an attack on our nation: McCain and Graham, inter alia, have also said it.
(2) Trump, himself, may not have colluded with any Russian—and Maddow has said that repeatedly.
(3) There's no proof that anyone from Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian Govt., but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that some people may have engaged in something not good.
(4) Many other media outlets give little attention to the Trump-Russia issues, so the world is not losing out simply because Maddow devotes a lot of time to them. Some of those outlets focus on important stuff, like speculations about soap opera-esque infighting among White House staffers.
(5) I understand why you would withhold judgment re: whether Russia colluded with any of Trump's campaign staff; I too withhold judgment due to lack of conclusive proof, but is that a reason to call off the various investigations?
(6) I do not see the logic of your dismissing Maddow (or the FBI, CIA, and Senate Intel Committee') as a mere conspiracy theorists. "Conspiracy" basically means at least two or more people simply agreeing to do something bad or illegal and taking an affirmative step in furtherance of the bad or illegal act. It's not particularly rare.
(7) I do not understand why The Intercept has repeatedly disparaged Maddow for pursuing her interest in exposing the info that she gets. Isn't that what the Fourth Estate is supposed to do?
(8) Or should our media devote its time to musing over how "presidential" a man is for doing what most presidents do in the ordinary course—or worse, unquestioningly swallowing the spin of our politicians, like most media did in 2003, when GWB was using falsehoods to sell a war to ordinary folks?
Perhaps Rachel earns a commission on military sales by helping the foreign policy cons and thieves for ever wars which suck the american economy ever downward into hell's drop chute.
FPOC foreign policy organised crime; start a war, fuel a war, bill hard working americans.
I am GLAD is keeping the FOCUS on Trump and Russia. Con men always want you to look where They direct your attention. Thank you Rachel! She always covers news we aren't getting anywhere else. Others cover the same thing 24/7, after which it is no longer news.
Yes. We only hear about the woefully under reported Trump because Russia meme from our MSNBC Conwoman-in-Chief Rachael (sixwaysfromsunday) Maddow.
I think it is likely, as the super- rich suck- in more wealth, that we could probably connect them (each rich [email protected]#r) all like dots around the globe. The wealthy love spending money on all things American( U$A) don't they? The Chinese, Saudis, and yes..the super rich f$%^er's in Russia too! And if your a affluent ass that is married to a Russian, those wheels & deals could lead to Russia. Mystery solved. Now let's be honest Rachael is doing her job, one that REQUIRES her to be a Clinton Stooge! But why are you including:
"While proof of collusion with Moscow could well emerge — and could well
topple Trump's presidency…" ?
Come on, I think we know that it will be impossible to find definitive proof, the time for finding it,…honestly, has come and gone..just like Rachael's credibility as the "smartest person on TV". –Amazing what 30,000 an episode will trap you into becoming.
Well, this much space dedicated to Rachel Maddow. Guess she got to the boys at TI. I think I'll start listening to her more. And to all those who whine about McCarthy, you skipped high school history that day to hit the bud, it's not even close. And how is that transparency movement working out now? We're moving in the right direction now, aren't we Glenn and Jeremy? The sad thing is that having Ed and Julian in charge will ultimately kill it for generations. Keep up the good work, boys. Surely Trump will make the US a peace loving nation once and for all because of your efforts.
"vital governmental spending."
There is no such thing.
Well Mr Glorb my friend they still do have to pay the interest on the debt. Whats that now? 20 Trillion? Don't worry we alreay should have but the "pits" are gone "speed of light trading" has ensued and the "quants" crafting "quantum derivatives" have firmly estalished "we're not in Kansas anymore."
May be collusion between the Russians and the DNC by putting in a crappy candidate that was already predicted to lose to Trump. Don't tell Maddow! There may have been Russian influence, but the biggest factor was that Hillary was a crappy candidate, a symbol of the status quo, and some people would not vote for her. Couldn't hold one's nose that long. Some people are attempting to spin history in their little microcosm of MSNBC rather than accept that the candidate was the root cause of the loss.
Is the Russians paying $500000, or $20 million to a trust fund? That's a pretty good connection.by the way that was Bill & Hillary.
At The Intercept, we are expected to connect the dots when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Obama, or anyone else associated with the Democratic Party. But when it comes to Trump and the obvious role Russia played in assisting his election, suddenly the burden of proof rises rather high. Fair enough. But I can't consider The Intercept a decent news source anymore.
So RS I guess you come here to read Glenn mostly?
are we? expected by whom, and which dots aren't actually connected?
The Intercept ran plenty of snarky insinuation pieces against Clinton during the campaign, but the standard of proof they set for the Russian hacking of the DNC was beyond absurd. There were IP links, known front groups for Russian intelligence, intel community statements, bipartisan statements from members of congress, clear motivation, public encouragement by Trump himself.
And yet day after day the Intercept was smudging the lens trying to cast doubt because they couldn't accept that Wikileaks had flipped, they couldn't accept that Russia was still a bad actor (despite their treatment of Snowden). The necessary mental leaps to avoid casting suspicion on Russia are untenable.
The Intercept ran plenty of snarky insinuation pieces against Clinton during the campaign…
that may be the case. do you have an example that would be an actual equivalent here?
There were IP links, known front groups for Russian intelligence, intel community statements, bipartisan statements from members of congress, clear motivation, public encouragement by Trump himself.
the IP links were shown to be more or less random. as i recall, the *assertion* regarding the known Russian government hackers was provided by a private contractor hired by the DNC. which bipartisan congressional or IC statements did you find particularly convincing? the ones i am aware of seemed to be carefully qualified or lacking in substantiate or even a definite attribution.
motivation is a given, and thus not really informative. modern states are constantly involved in propaganda programs and generally fucking with each other. that's a truism.
And yet day after day the Intercept was smudging the lens trying to cast doubt because they couldn't accept that Wikileaks had flipped, they couldn't accept that Russia was still a bad actor (despite their treatment of Snowden). The necessary mental leaps to avoid casting suspicion on Russia are untenable.
this is absolutely fallacious. where in TI have you seen anyone claim that Russia was NOT a bad actor? who has claimed that they were above suspicion? this is not a binary equation, and that simple fact has been reiterated ad nauseam where this subject has been discussed. this shouldn't even need stating, and still people ignore it when they see it.
There are too many deep Russian connections to count in Trump's inner circle, and the little matter of the server in Trump Tower connected to a Russian Bank discovered by university computer scientists curious about Russia's role in hacking the DNC. Coincidences? Synchronicity? So now the Intercept joins the ranks of Trump news lackeys. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Keep up the good work Dr Maddow, you'll bring his ass down sooner or later..You and Jake tapper keep up the good work!!
How can this person have a show? No talent, no news skills at all just annoying rhetoric.
A human in a panic, like US's lefts from January, is irrational by nature.
I don't think we can overcome this fact without some neuroscientific brain surgery.
Poor Aaron who doesn't even have .000001% of the actual audience that Rachel has.
Does anyone know if Rachel Maddow is a relative of McCarthy?
She is obviously a corporate media asset placed to distract the public's attention by controlling the conversation thus moving it away from anything of substance.
Oh, you poor babies. I'm going to feel so sorry for you when your whole world comes crashing down.
Follow the $$. Follow the dead russians.
As a poster below notes, Maddow, at this point, is a partisan hack. She wasn't bad back in the day, but Clinton's loss blew her mind anddestroyed her credibility. The smartest woman on tv? That ain't sayin' much.
Excellent article. The US has caught up and now exceeds the Russo-phobia of the EU/NATO. There is no turning back as even domestic dissent has Putin's finger prints. Last year the NYTimes put Putin behind anti-TPP protests.
But what I find interesting at this point is how the anti-Russian rhetoric has echoes of German Nazis against the Jews and Russians (Soviet Union). The spiels of Russians undermining Western democracies and even civilization echos directly German Nazi propaganda about the world Jewish conspiracies to undermine the West. On this in particular, one could replace Putin/Russian with "Jews" and instant time machine back to German 1930's. Putin's image has been transformed into various "creatures" even in the major media–guess who else did the same thing. I thought Time's cover of Putin definitely over-accented his nose in their photograph. One democrat on the House Un-american committee compared Putin to a spider, which was one of the more favorite Nazi comparisons as a spider's web represents the insidious reach of the Jewish conspiracy. McCain's claim that Russia is a backward country echos German Nazi stereotypes of Russia as a primitive, backward "Asiatic" country.
I might accept that some of these themes are simply accidents, but in the context of the virulent Russo-phobia of Maddow and others, maybe not so far off from another and lethal enemy of Jews and Russians–the German Nazis, the real ones.
I stopped listening to npr after repeated anti-Russian stories last year including the one that stated that Russians smiled less than other humans. What total propaganda. Intercept, democracynow, and counterpunch much more non-biased.
Maddow kept seeing a HILLARY win no election night, she never saw The Trump Victory Coming. She's an investigative reporter? GIVE ME A BRAKE.
This woman belongs in a padded cell,along with Laurence O'Donnell.
The main problem with this piece is the assumption that Maddow was ever anything more than a partisan hack. I have only watched her maybe 50-100 times in the years she has been on, but she was never very good.
I won't look it up, but she did a piece on the bombing of the funeral in Yemen last fall. Actually, no, she did a piece on the missile attack on a US warship a few days later. It was the perfect time to mention how the US was helping the Saudis destroy Yemen and the hatred it will no doubt cause, but Maddow utterly ignored the issue and used it to argue how great it was we had Obama in charge. Yes, Obama is better than Trump, but the chance to educate her viewers about an awful US policy was lost. And she also wanted some of the time allotted talking about catamarans. Don't ask.
If there's no collusion between Trump and Putin. Where's the Intercept's expose proving it? In the meantime, I admire your support for 45 and his hateful, misanthropic administration.
Garbage journalism, this article, is no better than fake journalism and both tarnish the vessel that delivers it.
"Jennifer Palmieri, a senior member of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, captured the prevailing mentality when she recently urged party members to talk about the Russian 'attack on our republic' — and to do so 'relentlessly and above all else.'"
"And no leading media figure has done so more than Maddow."
Right out of the gate, an insinuation of some kind of conspiracy to spread from coast to coast that this is the story to repeat and amplify. Where is the proof? Do you have proof of a connection between Palmieri (I've never heard that name before) and Maddow? Clapper is presented as a reliable source to support the author's argument but it has been established Clapper lied numerous times including during testimony to Congress which some members wanted him charged with perjury. Why didn't Mate note this?
I have tuned in to several of Maddow's shows presenting this subject. Following these shows, not one person, journalist or not, has claimed her story or details were wrong or false. In fact, this article is dealing with quantity not accuracy. She has not, during the times I watched, drew unreasonable conclusions.
In this day and age, my policy is, no news purveyor can or should be trusted. Not a single one. I am a fan of The Intercept and that policy goes for this publication, too. This article has legitimate information that has unfortunately been hijacked for Mate's agenda, whatever that is. He took The Intercept down a notch or two and that too, is unfortunate.
Yes and ultimately the Tomohawk floor show was entertainment provided for the Chinese (dining with Trump at the time) and the Koreans, our in house domestic Russia/Trump conspiracy nutjobs, the Iranians, the Russians, the Turks and only by virtue of their deep state targeted status the Syrians.
Sarin has? Nope. Not with the filmed protocol failures by the White Al Queda Helmets. White Phosphurous or Phosgene maybe? Either way neither the UN, Iran or Russia are responsible for US backed terrorist false flag attack but the UN Security Council couldn't even muster the votes for a formal investigation.
The Russians were given advance notice to vanish. No top intel people (including Pompeo) were at the meeting approving the strike. The bombs understandably failed to take out a hardened airfield in use the next day and their disbursal pattern speaks to the age of the weapons the incompetence of personnel or even the deliberate intent of the personnel targeting those weapons to minimize damage to both the facilities, equipment and personnel (Russian to be sure due as they WERE notified). Big bright explosions. Wall to wall coverage. The story most of you saw about Iranian and Russian warning the US about their own red lines in Syria…False.
I wonder how all of this will effect representative Conaway and Gowdys investigation into Rice, Clapper and Brennan's unmasking Project Dragnets US PERSONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 to the press and on Obamas eleventh hour executive order to share unminimized intelligence GOVERNMENT WIDE REGARDLESS OF SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.
Right out of the gate, an insinuation of some kind of conspiracy to spread from coast to coast that this is the story to repeat and amplify. Where is the proof?
That's absurd, and a gross straw man. The article doesn't claim any kind of "conspiracy," at all. Rather, it correctly argues, with copious support, that establishment Democrats are promoting Russia hysteria, placing it front and center, to the detriment of many other far more important matters.
Clapper is presented as a reliable source to support the author's argument but it has been established Clapper lied numerous times including during testimony to Congress
Which has been noted here before, by, e.g., Glenn Greenwald just last month: Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion, my emphasis:
Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama's DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. "We had no evidence of such collusion," Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama's DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made "against interest."
What a hit piece.
No collusion between Trump, his corporatist cabinet, campaign and transition teams, inner circle, family members and dictators and despots worldwide in pursuit of enormous financial rewards.
He has not installed unaccountable family members without experience or credentials in top advisory positions to advance mutual business interests.
There is absolutely no evidence that Trump's pay to play, let em eat cake administration are plunderers. They simply desire world peace and better relations with Putin and friends.
Your straw man, non sequiturs and overall vapid "response" does not undermine either my point or Greenwald's article. In the least.
IsItSunnyInSeattle, we all know that HRC hit a glass ceiling fabricated in large part by Putin himself on 4chan. the question is, what can we do about it?
"we all know that HRC hit a glass ceiling fabricated in large part by Putin himself"
After Hillary climbed inside a Russian vodka bottle, the glass ceiling was everywhere.
Where is the proof? Do you have proof of a connection between Palmieri (I've never heard that name before) and Maddow?
You not knowing Palmieri's name doesn't make her any less influential on the politics of the Clinton campaign (she was communications director) and political programming such as Maddow. She has been interviewed on Maddow's program, I guess you must have missed that one, even though you've "tuned into several of Maddow's shows."
Palmieri is a big player in politics and has been for many years. And, as noted, she was a big of a player as one can get in Clinton's campaign. To dismiss the possibility that Maddow wouldn't be interested in taking Palmieri's advice or suggestion on what to include in, and how to conduct, her news program,dismisses the more than reasonable likelihood that Maddow would be more than happy and excited to follow Palmieri's suggestion. Calling that a "conspiracy theory" is hyperbolic. Maddow's abundant coverage and programming of Russia fever is undeniable. Whether or not she was influenced by a highly placed individual such as Palmieri, whom, by the way, Maddow can be seen gushing over in her introduction of before her interview of her, is not 'proven' but not at all out of the realm of possibility.
You never heard of Palmieri? Really? You just shot your whole dumb argument in the ass, unwittlingly. Piker.
I was pretty shocked to hear an Intercept writer quoting Clapper as reliable. Also there isno refutation of Madows factual
Maddow's argument is powerful and true. If Trump is in any way beholden to Russian interests, that trumps the other news, of which there is plenty of media coverage. Maddow's coverage and other journalist's coverage of financial debt held by Russian oligarchs seems to me the most potent line of inquiry. The evidence of direct collusion in the election does not appear to be likely and is quickly approaching a dead end, but the evidence is very strong that Trump and several on his team owe a big bundle to Russian "bankers" and that is worth pursuing . The problem is that Maddow is straining too hard with not enough actual information, and she is blinded by her imaginary picture of Barak Obama, Hillary and the Democratic Party. She seems rather clueless about the dark history of the CIA and the speed with which Trump is turning over international power to the elite military leaders of the deep state.
Sis. Everything you're fronting is genuine right down to the Russian Oligarachs. Problem is Podesta, his Brother and the Clinton Foundattion have got Trump beat on Fiscal Malfaesance and Conspiracy to Collude approaching 10 fold WHILE THEY WERE IN POWER.
All they got on Trump is minor league private citizen fiscal impropriety if that.
But what if the allegations are ultimately disproved or go nowhere? Maddow and likeminded influential liberals will have led their audience on a fruitless quest, all the while helping foment anti-Russia sentiment, channeling Democratic Party energy away from productive self-critique, and diverting focus from the White House's actual policies.
There is one big, fat malodorous question here. I think most people reading and commenting on this story — and many previous versions of this story here at TI — would agree on that question. ("Yeah-butters" excepted.)
How did a completely incompetent and clearly disturbed authoritarian like Trump become President?
Everyone has their own explanations. Nationally two over-arching explanations appear in one form or another.
This article represents the grand explanation favored by TI writers: The Democrats lost the election because people voted against HRC.
The other grand explanation, favored by what many here call the leftwing media but also including rightwing media outlets like Fox and Brietbart, etc., take an opposite view: Trump won the election because a majority of electors (representing voters) voted for him.
In short, the question is this: Did Democrats lose or did Republicans win?
You"d think, almost any rational person would think, "what's the difference?" Saying Democrats lost, Republicans won is substantially identical.
Unfortunately, in the vast metaphysical caverns of American politics, these two absolutely true statements denote entirely different realities.
Let's go spelunking!
Two cave entrances promise the most vast and dazzling network of underground caverns. One says, "Democrats Lost" and the other says "Republicans Won."
The funny thing (and my point) is that the people choosing the DL caverns are (generally speaking) Republicans and the people choosing the RW caverns are (generally speaking) Democrats.
Once in the antechambers, the DL people can choose from various paths: the tunnel to HRC is a warmonger, or the passage to the DNC doesn't care, or the underground lake, Bernie would have won … etc. The explanations and assertions run deep. And all are available to those who enter the Democrats Lost system of caves.
In the other antechamber, the RW one, visitors also have various options — underground routes: Trump colluded with Russia, HRC won the popular vote; Republicans cheated … again, whichever cave system you choose to explore, your'll find glorious stalactites and stalagmites that prove your case. Also, these caverns are only open to people who have entered the Republicans Won system of caves.
Along the way in both systems of caves, kiosks sell things like "DL T-shirts" or "RW coffee cups." Sometimes it seems like there's a kiosk every ten feet no matter which cavern you choose or which of the various paths you chose. That's the media hawking their products (or more precisely, their advertisers' products.)
At the end of the day, you meet with your partner who chose the other cave. (You're a well rounded couple after all.) You each discuss your adventures for the day. Your partner says, "stalactites go down" and you say "I thought stalagmites go down"
"Well maybe in your tour, the world is just upside down," your partner says with a hint of a sneer. You know it's going to be an uncomfortable night.
Meanwhile, back at the American Caverns, the owners count their money.
"I can't believe we've done it. We've actually monetized reality! And you said reading Plato was bullshit. Hahahaha."
Back at home, you can't help yourself. You want to wipe that smug smile off your partner's face when suddenly the electricity goes out.
Your partner says, "That's the third time this month. What's wrong with that damn electric company."
"Maybe it's Russian hackers. Who really knows these days?" you say.
Despite the glare of your cell phone flashlight, you notice the dirty look your partner gives you, "you would say that, wouldn't you?"
Um, the Republicans won, and the Dems lost. This aint that tough. This shit about caves? Bad metaphor. It does sound like you're inching towards acceptance, and that's a plus.
This aint that tough.
Read the comments. Hell, read the article.
Apparently understanding the 2016 election is plenty tough.
Politics is metaphysics.
Breathtakingly dishonest propaganda, even for the Intercept. James O'Keefe is furiously taking notes. O'Donnell's (unhelpful) point, which Maddow didn't so much endorse as ignore, was that it was amazing that you couldn't rule out something as fantastical as that Assad's chemical weapons attack was orchestrated by the Kremlin to help Trump politically, on account of two things that are both exquisitely well documented a) That the connections between Trump and Putin's regime, and the record of patronage that's flowed from Putinite Oligarchs to the Trump family, are profound, and b) Because both men are patently amoral, monstrous and capable of any atrocity they might feel is in their interest.
The basic rationale is, I suppose, internally consistent so long as you don't know anything about geopolitics. Given a basic understanding, however, it is a clearly highly implausible scenario, useful mainly as a foil for outlets of disrepute like the Intercept desperately looking to save face, given that they've been beclowning themselves so completely on this story from the beginning, even as more and more evidence of deeper and deeper corruption and influence peddling by Russia all the way to the highest levels of the Trump campaign and the American executive keeps coming to the surface.
At the core of this deception is the absurd story that intrepid journalists that are sensible, serious and have pristine integrity like Rachel Maddow are unhinged. O'Donnell of course does not fit that description in the least, and his comment was mainly helpful to you lot for smearing the journalist who it does. It's dishonest character assassination 101 stuff there.
As for the rest of this toilet roll, I didn't read it. There was no point after you helpfully put all the cards on the table in the first few paragraphs.
I appreciate that someone is staying with this. There are so many other distractions for those who are supposed to be carrying out this investigation. If it turns out there's nothing to it, great! At least we will know. There are just so MANY "coincidental" connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, it needs a careful look.
"But what if the allegations are ultimately disproved or go nowhere? Maddow and likeminded influential liberals will have led their audience on a fruitless quest…" Its fruitlessness will be a moot point once World War 3 is up and running. Maybe that's the plan behind this propaganda offensive!
Hopefully I'm wrong, but sometimes it's hard to imagine why else there would be this rabid media fixation on Russia while NATO's tanks take up their positions along its borders.
Next we'll learn that Maddow and Glenn Beck are hooking up. If viewership is really up, it is important to remember that it is only up among people that have nothing better to do than watch cable TV in the evening. We live sad and confusing times.
It makes sense that the moment this lady began stacking ratings the critics would come out of the gutter. The sad part is that if it weren't for Rachel's 'quote, unquote' incessant coverage on VIRTUALLY EVERY SUBJECT (INCLUDING RUSSIA), the public would likely know very little about whats happening and those who are making decisions about us daily.
While other outlets focus on issues like Flint for less than a news cycle with ABSOLUTELY little to no follow through, Rachel is consistent and thorough and at the very least provides sources for research I can actually research myself.
Your criticisms belong elsewhere. Try Faux News, Breitbart or RT news. There, your criticisms will DEFINITELY have traction real basis in fact.
"But we are going to start at this embassy. The embassy, this is a big one. It is fully staffed … there's even an attaché specifically for fish. The fisheries attaché is named Mr. Oleg Vladimirovich Rykov."
There is a good reason for that.
Ms. Maddow is crying about Russia because it spoiled her proprietors' regime change fest in Syria; Russia refused to ally itself with AQ and IS.
She is allied with the HRC policy advisor who said "AQ is on our side in Syria" back in 2012.
Maddow may need to tap the brakes a bit on Russia, but it is ludicrous to suggest that this isn't page one newsworthy. Only 70,000 TOTAL COMBINED votes separated Trump and not Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and to suggest that the Russia/Wikileaks email revelation about the DNC working against Sanders didn't negatively impact Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton and being critical to the election outcome is preposterous. General Flynn seeking immunity having "a story to tell," Trump pocketing a $60M windfall from a Russian oligarch on his Florida home boondoggle, Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, Trump's posse packed with Russian benefactors, etc. all indicate there is plenty of fire to go with the smoke. Lets check back one year from now and see who has more Russian caviar on their face, Rachel Maddow or The Intercept. My bet it will be the latter and Maddow will be celebrated for her dogged pursuit of this attack on our democracy.
Russia must follow the rules just like other countries. That is, set up a Political Action Committee and start doling out money. This practice is endorsed by US politicians from all parties. Resorting to hacking, or other underhanded methods such as releasing documents proving US political skulduggery is not acceptable. It is no wonder the US political class is going out of their minds; foreign countries do not have the right to influence an election without spending large sums of money. MSNBC can't survive without paid political ads.
The Russians will eventually come round and Maddow will be justly celebrated for helping it happen just as you suggest.
If you think Rachel Maddow doesn't believe in the rightness of her cause, and that it excuses any inaccuracies she commits in its service, then you don't know partisan commitment.
Hers is the perfectly logical culmination of LOTE voting. Accepted a lesser evil? Would a little more hurt?
Yeah, money and politics. The Left still sounds dumb when $$$ becomes their default final explanation for every dodgy statement out of every public figure 's mouth. Even shills want to believe.
Huh. Now I don't see my earlier comments. Could be operator error. But it seems like someone maybe deleted them? But has kept many, many, agreeing with the author. Oh, and the ones saying Maddow is a conspiracy theorist. Fascinating.
Maddow might as well be CIA
A Russian Madd Dog Maddow chewing on a bone provided by her employer and string pullers who are ALWAYS communicating with her employers and communicating with other employers of similar zeal to misinform and pay HANDSOME LY for actions they themselves cannot take or it wouldn't be suggestive hypnotism which is what American media is…
Pop pop fizz fizz (why do I recall so easy)
Look at last three topics shown under "Top Non-Russia Issues Coverage". They are, in order, about mindless interventionism in the Middle East, climate change and climate justice, and feeding the US military machine.
Let me repeat this: they are about bellicose policies that could possibly lead to nuclear war AND catastrophic climate failure. The two reasons why the Doomsday Clock was set to 2.5 minutes to midnight recently. The two things that could very well bring about the end of civilization in a not-so-distant future.
And Maddow thinks this Russia nonsense is somehow more pressing. Shows how much her priorities are aligned with shithead Democrats and not with the real liberals, progressives and working people in general.
You can call her a great journalist as much as you want, but that doesn't change the reality that she is yet another MSM official propagandist.
NATO has mutated into a WELFARE COLONY. It is an economy unto itself and needs to proove itself. Hillary's arms deal was important for NATO survival. McCain is all in now. But these NATO people realise their uselessness and so for their own sense of importance, they now want to dominate the entire planet., to spread like mold or an invading insect colony.
Until they are fired, things will get very more weird.
This is great! A very important topic that is not being covered very much. This issue seems like it will be an enduring problem. The thing is ginning up a national emergency with a nuclear armed rival isn't just some political maneuvering. This goes beyond that. I don't want to be too insulting but I think people frankly have to be flat idiots to get behind such insanity.
Are the Russians running our government? One would think they were watching some public access channel listening to such breathless nonsense. But this kind of hysteria on such a major network in front of such a large audience is worrying.
Playing chicken with a country that could literally incinerate our country because people can't admit to themselves Clinton wasn't actually a very good candidate isn't a sign of robust backlash. It is a sign that people have literally lost their minds. It pains me a lot, but it just doesn't seem like these people should come back into power.
You might as well add Louise Mensch is also a gifted journalist.
Actually these folks shouldn't be anywhere a megaphone until they get some serious psychiatric help. Why have they put crazies in charge of our media?
Wait a minute….Mensch has superpowers……her name is just a terrestrial camouflage.
Vice frum Yoorup hunnee.
Loowheeze Munch don haev know soupurpowurz.
teh onny turdrestrial camelflage hur haev iz taht she sownd liek an entyre fluck uv geeze honkin wen she opun hur mowth don u no.
What an unfortunate waste of focus here. Questioning how much Maddow has covered the Trump Russia affair seems similar to questioning the Washington Post for how many stories they wrote about Watergate in the early 70s. OF COURSE she's covering it. The bigger two questions are: 1) Does the evidence MERIT her focus, and if so, 2) why aren't other media outlets covering it more. It'd be the biggest scandal in U.S. history.
One last thought: I'm (no doubt) one of many who wrote to Electors about considering the purpose of the Electoral College (and their vote). I, among others, wrote to Maddow asking her to cover the EC. She finally did so, over a month later. I realize the entire question of the EC changing votes was a long shot. But. . . Let's say we have an inept guy (possibly a colluding with foreign influence guy) in office. . . Something the EC was designed to prevent, along with various states' voting representation. Imagine what might have happened had Maddow covered that, from Election Day until December 19th.
(But hey, don't mind me, I'm just a crackpot theorist, right?)
Considering that electors are chosen primarily BECAUSE they are partisan hacks, there was never any realistic chance of enough of them flipping to make a difference. Better to spend one's efforts on something that might actually have a practical effect.
You say that as if it was a bad thing.
Thank God for Rachel Maddow. You? Not so much.
Matt Taibbi's been fixated on this for awhile now. I wonder why? If the FBI gets it's act together and comes down hard on the Fake President and his enablers there will be enough egg on TI's face to spread around the entire newsroom….provided there is a newsroom. Why not let Maddow do her thing instead of casting dispersions? Aren't there other things YOU could be reporting on?
i could not understand her sudden zealous slant, her imbalance in consideration of world threats of Assas vs Netanyahu, her opportunistic cheerleading for "russia did it" with zero evidence, UNTIL, i read she was being paid $7,000,000 a year. That kind of money buys a lot of BS.
in one segment i recall last week she slipped her tongue and started to utter "American Emp…." then caught herself and said American somethingelse.
i used to adore this woman as a champion and fighter for us regular people on the ground in mainstreet. Now she caters to wallstreet and paid political interests. She would be a great independent if she could ditch supporting israel and shift gears.
Great Report.
Wel I don't have the context for what she was talking about in order to finish the "American Emp-" statement. But if the word was Empire, it's hardly amiss. U. S. Corporations have, since the Fifties, used those sort of strategies around the globe.
This is Russia Maddow reporting for MSDNC
Not sure why it bothers you that some TV station that you dont work at is airing segments that you say you dont care about, but yet…..you just devoted your entire article to Trump/Russia ties.
Look…if Fox can go all day without even a mention of Trump/Rusdia ties then who cares if the oppisite is true across the pond.
R.W. is as obcessed with Trump/Russia ties (LOTS OF SMOKE….LOTS OF SMOKE) as "If someone would just call "Saun Hanity is with pretending that 17 intel agencies say there is proof ARE ALL LYING.
My point is….do what I did…..I got tired of watching Fox news and especially Saun Hanity drulling all over the guy who started the Birther claim (did they cover that much or did they blame HRC for that to?) I stopped watching.
I choose to believe the 17 so I choose to watch R.M.
Turn the channel pal.
Corp media at its worst. Would be helpful if everyone would stop linking MSNBC with "real" liberal concepts. They are just one page in the right-wing playbook, along with the rest of the corporate media companies. Blame all on Trump/Russia/SeanSpicer/BernieSanders in that order. Nothing else exists in this country but what the corps tell you. If you choose to listen, that is. It's time we stop listening to people who want to push a narrative that is unsupportable without devotees. Be your own editor of your own thinking process, not MSNBC, CNN or any other media corp.
One might also argue that until we settle this question of whether or not the US just held a free and fair election (it seems not), and whether the guy making foreign and domestic policy and his administration colluded to win, is possibly more important/just as important as the policies. We can do both, and other news programs may be covering those. Important to work on who gets the Irone Throne of Westeros, but that's all moot if we don't focus on the camera-shy invading Others.
Come to think of it, the real mystery is why Russia bothers shaping TI content at all when no-one reads the site any more. Come on guys there's an efficiency saving staring you in the face here!
Odd confession that you are "no-one."
That might have worked if I'd said 'nobody', but full marks for effort. On the plus side we're adding to the comments count.
You said "no-one." Are you implying you (who reads this site) are incorporeal?
I've never met a bodiless person before, although I might have guessed you had no brain.
Ha I'll admit that's quite funny!
Hey Pete. The Intercept was not on the PropOrNot list.
The PropOrNot list is the list of of journalists and journalistic outlets the US Intelligence and Law Enforcement Services attested are complicit in advancing the Russian Federations 2016 Anti-Clinton political agenda. The Good news is that most of your favorite trusted outlets (like the Intercept) got a pass.
Wow, yeah it's crazy. America does all the bad stuff in the world and Russia is just misunderstood. The US media should quit its anti-Russia bias and just focus on wrongdoing closer to home.
Literally not what the article says it all. Try reading it again — maybe slower this time.
A hit!
Yeah, well, as I discuss and document below, if Democrats want to win, they'd better start taking better bread-and-butter positions instead of ranting 24/7 about Russia. Or, if they'd like to continue losing, keep on truckin'.
Like I've said before, we can do both. No need to start posting "why are we letting in Immigrants when we have Homeless Vets"-type memes. That's the real distraction.
…I like to get some sleep before I travel, but if you've got a warrant I guess you gonna come in (why automated 3rd and 4th party digital backups of daily ADT home security feeds are archive by default for sentimental reasons).
I credit Rachel for doing an amazing job of investigative journalism at a time when everyone else seems to be trying to sweep the Russian connection under the rug. She has not engaged in conspiracy theories, but has presented hard evidence about what becomes all Russians who oppose Putin and what occurred inside the Trump campaign and is now occurring inside his administration.
Keep your eye on the prize Rachel. Let the other journalists cover the other stories. It's like the story Jack and the Beanstalk and this Russia connection is the goose who lays the golden eggs. Keep at it Jack..I mean Rachel..you're fighting giants but in the end you'll bring that golden goose home and cut down the support that is holding up Trump's administration and it will all come tumbling down.
This talentless, pathetic woman is as obnoxious as hell and so starving for attention. Enough of her already!
It's almost like she's getting paid not to criticize the Democratic Party.
Tonight, Rachel Maddow will prove that the real murderer was Dostoevsky in the prison yard with a samovar. Breaking news!
Yes, and to focus on fictional or ultimately trivial things that "distinguish" the two Parties so that no one sees the Democrats are as complicit as the GOP in furthering corporatism, militarism, imperialism and oppressive policing (inclusive of unethical surveillance).
I am appalled everyday at the level of idiocy and insanity coming out of the media AND all of our leadership.
The "Charts" offered in this piece are disgraceful. They demonstrate a stunning level of ignorance.
Excel will give plenty of options for displaying your data in graphical format that is meaningful.
It's almost as if the apex of human achievement – the pie chart – had never happened.
A picture is worth a thousand words only if it is drawn correctly.
Some of us truly believe that Hillary Clinton was royally screwed out of the presidency, but that doesn't really work for the Sanders wing of the party, does it? Hence the argument that the Dem leadership is avoiding "introspection" by continuing to focus on the ties between Trump & Putin.
Rachel is apparently betting, as am I & my excruciatingly moderately progressive friends, that Hillary did not lose because of her neglect of flyover America, so we hope that she keeps up the good work.
Plus, it's like watching a spy novel unfold; populist rants are quite boring in comparison.
Some of us truly believe that Hillary Clinton was royally screwed out of the presidency, but that doesn't really work for the Sanders wing of the party, does it?
It "doesn't work" for rational analysts emotionally capable of facing obvious reality. It's pathetic denialism.
. . .I & my excruciatingly moderately progressive friends. . .
Thanks for the weak, slightly-nauseating laugh.
but that doesn't really work for the Sanders wing of the party, does it?
Know who it doesn't "work for?" Working-class Democrats in rust belt states, like Ohio.
WaPo: Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say
Democrats have fallen completely out of touch with America's blue-collar voters.
"It doesn't matter how much we scream and holler about jobs and the economy at the local level. Our national leaders still don't get it," said David Betras, [a county] party chair.
The party's national leaders have focused on decrying Trump, opposing his Supreme Court pick and tying his administration to Russia. That approach — trying to defeat Trump solely by attacking him and his policies — already has failed once, many at the dinner said.
… they think few are talking about issues that really matter to people in places such as Youngstown: Stagnant wages, vanishing jobs and sputtering economies. Even the Democrats' recent success in blocking Trump's attempt to repeal President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act matters little in the face of those core interests, local party leaders said. And unless the party begins addressing those blue-collar issues, they said, there will be real and dire consequences in states like theirs….Betras was seeing GOP yard signs suddenly popping up. During the primaries, he learned that 18 of his own Democratic precinct captains had crossed party lines to vote for Trump. Some areas had to print extra Republican primary ballots just to keep up with the demand.
…Lou Gentile, 37, was among the Ohio casualties in November. A rising local Democratic star, he lost his state Senate seat in a district struggling with coal mining declines in the Ohio Valley.
"I'm worried about the party," Gentile said. "If anything good comes out of this last cycle, I hope it's that our national leaders finally get the message about what's going on in places like this. We have to go back to basics — jobs, wages, the things that actually make a difference to people out here."
The Democratic Party is in ashes at all levels, federal, state and municipal. Wake up, and start addressing the issues, begin taking the *economic* positions that will win — and be seen fighting for them — or get used to more losing.
@ Mona —
Spot on. What believing Dems don't seem to realize is that in addition to being phenomenally overblown, this Russia hysteria is diverting them from some long, long overdue self-examination. Will they **ever** get around to that? By this point, after watching Dems get outmanuevered and played at pretty much every turn over the last quarter-century, I don't think they'll ever figure out how and how often they've been suckered.
Note that it's only occassionally Republicans who do the suckering. Since at least the Clinton years Dems have been played for saps by their own "leaders". It's only now that the coalition is in complete shambles that Dem "leadership" can't easily get away with their formulaic evasions and horseshit.
"Novel" (noun) a **fictitious prose narrative** of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
Hopefully it's mere book length.
MSNBC? It's ludicrous. The females cry on air, hands fanning faces, the men have orgasms over the beauty of their weapons, and Maddow wants to know when the Russians last beat your wife.
Thank god somebody finally said it. Thank you so much for this thoroughly researched, well-written article. Bravo for taking this on! We'd all like to see more articles like this and as a leading mainstream progressive voice Rachel Maddow needs to continually be taken to task.
Maddow's response to Trump's atrocious and criminal bombing – criminal on both the absence of congressional approval, and internationally – is as absurd, and dangerous, as the tendency to make the story around Trump's transgressions about the media's, and the Democrats', response to it.
I agree on both accounts.
Maddow is not a journalist. MSNBC is not a news channel. It's an "infotainment" channel that's talk radio hosts on TV. O'Donnell goes on Joy Reid's 2 hours and says I think Trump's lying about sexual harassment! I dare him to sue me! So what? Nobody cares what he thinks. But this is "great TV"?
Maddow is a multimillionaire talk show host paid by Comcast. Comcast management really hates Putin and wants to go to war with Russia. They tell Maddow we pay you millions and you do what we say. In all of her "crack in-depth reporting", has she EVER come up with actual proof of Putin being corrupt? No. Russia hacked the DNC and rigged the election? No. the US has rigged hundreds of elections. Does she ever mention this on-air? No, she doesn't. Why? Because she knows if he did, Comcast would fire her. Then she'd be another out-of-work talk host.
MSNBC is a network that had the Donahue, the #1 show in pime time. The ONLY reason Donhaue got fired is because Chris Matthews told management I hate this guy. Either he goes or I go. Why would any network fire their most successful talent and cancel their show? Because Comcast pays Matthews a LOT of money to do his on-air hype and gossip. Infotainment (esp. when you have right wingers on) makes shitloads of money. That's all the rich, powerful and mostly white male Comcast management care about.
If MSNBC were an actual news channel, they would do actual journalism. Ray McGovern says that a DNC employee leaked the emails to Wikileaks. Has ANBODY in the corporate MSM investigated this? Has The Intercept? No and no.
Why is the Intercept afraid of Ray McGovern? Is it because he appears on RT? Is it because he's making them look bad? Any channel that thinks asshole Kevin O'Leary is "wonderful" deserves to go out of business.
Comcast had nothing to do with MSNBC when Donahue was fired; it was General Electric…but babble on…
this is a perfect reminder of why i don't visit this site often; the strange affinity with russia and scorn of maddow.
Hi, Rachel!
Funny the " strange affinity with russia aka need for proof before making broad scope conspiratorial accusations" and "scorn of Maddow aka high standards in journalism" are precisely the reasons i do come
After Iraq, you would think many of you would have caught on to the media's pr tactics. When they are all on the same page beating war drums, be skeptical. This Russian nonsense is obvious bull. And, 5 years from now, like Iraq, when this all blows up, you idiots who keep believing obvious lies will pretend to have been on the right side.
Save your comment because it will be a reminder of how gullible many of you partisans can be. You guys hate thinking. All you have to do is listen to MSNBC gush over his new Neocon stances. Listen to their phony, aww shucks tone or phony laughter when they talk about him now. And, listen to them praise him.
I don't how Neocons continue to repeat the same playbook without any of you noticing.
Well, I'm a liberal Independent who votes both sides of the aisle. Maybe that's why I have little use for some of these categories. But let's assume for a moment it's all B. S.
How do we account for this? https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN14S0O6
And now there's a Senate Intelligence Hearing on the matter. Find that on C-Span, I watched a good bit of it. So this piece of bullshit happens to be on the bottom of someone's shoe and tracked on the carpet. Rather more info has emerged since January to convince us we should keep looking to see if anyone else has brought some in on their shoes, too.
Toooo many invites to the White House.
Excellent article. Would love to see more of these quantitative analyses of mainstream media coverage. I feel like it illuminates the narratives they are pushing much more clearly. Keep it up
This is just like when I was a kid, back in the 1970's, and every TV station that you turned on was droning on and on about Watergate. And see, that never led to anything either.
You're conveniently ignoring that Watergate was real, whereas Russia sabotaging Clinton is pure fantasy. Talking about it relentlessly isn't going to lead to impeachment of Trump.
jesus christ, she's as obsessive as joe mccarthy was.
The last bit is kind of interesting. I'd been thinking lately that if Putin really wanted to screw with America's political elites, he would get one of his agents to come forward and confess that he (the agent) had helped rig the election–even thought eventually the story wouldn't pan out.
So Putin gets the US Government involved in the biggest food fight/clown fight in history while Putin is standing there handing out pies.
Call it Curveball 2.0.
Collusion between members of the sitting president's campaign and a hostile foreign power is big news. I like all this Russia coverage.
Its needed to counteract the effects of all the fake news and aktivnye meropriyatiya launched against our country by the Kremlin.
But it looks the Intercept is cool with that….
it's not news. it's not factual. it's propaganda. looks like you're cool with that.
This is xenophobia writ large. DJT makes a comment about a Hispanic judge and is met with shrieks of outrage.
Rachael Maddow accuses an entire country of subverting our way of life and she is celebrated as a brave truth-teller.
Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the target.
Where do YOU want to place the glass coffin with Joe McCarthy's fetid remains? Why are YOU pining for war against Russia? Should we all join the John Birch Society?
No doubt you're anxiously anticipating a single shred of meaningful evidence coming forth one of these days then.
There is only one reason Maddow is continuing to keep Russia on the front burner and that is because her "boss", The Queen of Chaos, wants her to.
Just a few days ago Hillary gave a speech where she outlined the four main reasons for her loss to the second most disliked presidential candidate in history (she takes the top spot):
Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were "beyond her control".
The former Democratic presidential candidate cited:
1.) Russian meddling in the election
2.) FBI Director James Comey's involvement toward the end of the race
3.) WikiLeaks' theft of emails from her campaign chairman
4.) Misogyny.
Of course, Ms. Maddow (nor anyone else) has yet to show the American public hard evidence of ANY "Russian" meddling in the election, particularly related to Vladimir Putin or any of his staff.
The DNC REFUSED to allow the FBI to investigate their server and instead had a private company do the "investigation".
"Wikileaks" did not "steal" any emails from Podesta. They only published them. Someone else did the hack/leaking, not Wikileaks.
And as for the Comey and the misogyny thing, this is just more in Hillary's (and Rachel's) basket of denials.
She lost because she is a pathological liar, because the country had Clinton fatigue, because the whole world saw her wilt like a flower without water at the 9/ll event and because no one trusted her, especially after the entire server debacle with the FBI.
Of course we will NEVER hear Rachel or Hillary admit the obvious.
In the meantime we will also never hear Rachel Maddow criticize the DNC and the arrogant "Superdelegates" for their disgraceful actions during the primaries to promote their criminal queen and to bury Sanders. It was truly despicable.
Had Sanders been given a fair shake from the beginning and had their been no rigged primaries and debates, my belief is that Donald Trump would have never been elected.
But Rachel Maddow will never admit any of this, because she is in bed with the DNC and Clinton.
There is plenty of evidence, however, proving the DNC rigged their primaries to give Clinton the win over Sanders and influenced the media to promote Trump as a candidate she could win against.
The Intercept has fallen in love with its own case (Clinton's a miserable corporate, war mongering shill – which, of course, she is,) to a level that blinds its writers to the case for Trump treason that Maddow has demonstrated. Stand back and think about what her case means not what your analysis would have it be for just a moment. A cyber war is ongoing. AmeriKKKa has been attacked. Shouldn't we know that!? And what does that mean for the actions of the government as established?
Rachal Maddow once complimented Glenn Beck…now she acts like him.
I completely agree. There are times I think"can't we discuss something else?" But yet she wouldn't be going on so much if there wasn't something to go know about….I say keep it up.
RMaddow is very upset about the CrookdClintO trio treason and blowout– it is not misogyny but dishonesty so we have to still hear their shitty stupid speculative distractions! In your dreams Russia, and just as much real evidence!
ONE DAY AFTER her network joined the rest of corporate media in cheering for President Trump's missile attack on Syria, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was back to regular business: seeing Russian collaboration with Trump at work.
It's "impossible," fellow anchor Lawrence O'Donnell told Maddow on April 7, to rule out that "Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week – so that his friend in the White House could have a big night with missiles and all of the praise he's picked up over the past 24 hours."
Let's hear it for hard-hitting objective journalists at The Intercept where, instead of spending their time on the issues Maddow neglects, they spend their time analyzing Maddow's program.
What is the point here?
Where are Maddow's inaccuracies?
What has Maddow done that TI doesn't do on a daily basis — choose stories of interest to professional journalists and research them thoroughly and them present their findings to an audience?
Did she lie?
Did she gush over the pretty missiles?
Oh wait … I had to read down to get to the point of this smear by detailed analysis.
And what if the media's focus on the "Russia Connection" ends up goading Trump to become more bellicose with Russia? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently moved its doomsday clock to its highest point since 1953. Among many contributing factors, the Bulletin warned: "The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters."
What an incredible non sequitur!
First this, what if the media's focus on the "Russia Connection" ends up goading Trump to become more bellicose with Russia??
Yes, what if the media … (no, no, let's be honest … not the media, but the "unhinged" leftists at MSNBC like Rachel Maddow) … what if Trump tries to prove to everyone he's not a Russian patsy or catspaw by firing off the US nuclear arsenal?
Rachel Maddow wants to end the world with a nuclear holocaust!!!
How do we know this? Because, besides her obsession with a likely collaboration between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, there are atomic scientists!
It's indisputable! The US and Russia together possess 90% of the world's nuclear arsenal!!
What more proof do we need of how dangerously irresponsible Rachel Maddow's leftist obsession with Russia and Trump must be?
How can Maddow so cavalierly risk the lives of innocent children all over the world?!?
Let's shut her down before she ends life as we know it.
That's your point isn't it?
By backing Trump into a corner over trifling trifles, she trifles with NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.
And once Rachel Maddow is discredited we can get back to finding more reasons why Hillary Clinton should be blamed for making Trump president. But what do we expect from someone so complicit with Iran that she wouldn't bomb them when Bibi insisted. What's the matter with her?
Oh brave, brave Sir Aaron. You're single-handedly taking on the most powerful institution on earth — TRMS!
Maybe you should send this column to the Pulitzer committee.
Or sign and laminate ten copies and sell them on ebay for 1K apiece.
it's impossible to rule out that The Intercept orchestrated Aaron Matés orchestration of Maddow's reporting of O'Donnell's contention that Putin orchestrated Trump's orchestration of the attack on Syria, which was of course planned all along by HRC and the deep state
Ha ha ha! So great, I'll be you're just lapping up that hard-hitting coverage, huh?
Here's a hint, this is a recipe for more Democratic losses…but based on who their running that's actually a feature and not a bug of their system.
Never mind, keep on enjoying that MSNBC "news".
Democrats were always losing until they adopted the Republican dog whistle strategy. They had to pander to the Republican white-is-right-security-over-liberty crowd or else they would always be losing elections.
The only people who have ever lost are the American people for consistently getting frightened and duped to vote against their own interests.
AmeriKKKa has always been what it is, a nation of ignorant war mongering white christian supremacists.
They didn't have to pander to that crowd, they chose to because they believe in it. They could have addressed the needs of middle and working class voters but that wouldn't line their pockets, and that's really what Schumer, Feinstein and the rest are about.
You give American voters far too much credit. Just look at US history. Voters choose with their gut, not their minds. It's just human to do that. We think emotionally first and then it hits the cognitive mind, it's neuroscience. The voters make the choice, the party tries to align their beliefs with the crowd's so they can get their votes. Hillary did it so much it came off as fake, which with her it probably was.
The American people made the choices to have proto-fascism back then, and they still do it today. Any resistance to the capitalist regime will be met with the frothing masses of dogs called by their master's whistle.
White America is perfectly okay with how the US does business, and history shows they've always wanted it that way.
The only thing I would say is that it's not who voted so much as who didn't vote (adding, who didn't vote for one of the two party sham-candidates).
The credit for all of this doesn't go to the voters so much as to the corrupt system we "enjoy", the one that gives us a choice between two sides of the same coin.
What did she lie about? How about Trump withdrawing troops in Europe as a favor to Putin?
That's the awesome thing about wingnut BS Crazy conspiracy theories – they never need to be proved, and every refutation only shows how deep the conspiracy goes!
S.p.e.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n. And fluff. The Putin thing gets miles and money!
Or just maybe the incredibly shallow propaganda that Maddow is peddling is actually newsworthy. Propaganda isn't just another news story like any other, that a major MSNBC "news" host spends most of her time constructing conspiracy theories over half baked nonsense (and flagrant lies by omission) is something to take pretty seriously. The fact that there are so many gullible dupes aching to swallow such nonsense does not make it legitimate. She has gone full tinfoil hat, and that is not in anybody's interest. Well, beyond the irredeemably evil war mongers and corrupt political hacks who would rather gin up international crises than own up to their election losses, it is in nobody's interest.
$7 million in "America's empire"
she's a success!
Yes, she has lied repeatedly. It's quite well documented, in fact, including several times in this vey article. Tactical omission=lying.
Something most of us were taught as children, FFS.
While I'm in general agreement that TRMS appears a bit fixated on this issue, and not covering some of the others as much, this doesn't present a problem. On the west coast US market, TRMS airs in a line of very similar shows – Greta VanS, Chris Mathews, Chris Hayes, TRMS, Lawrence O, and then Brian Williams. Their formats are all very similar, and too often their content is the same- the same issue of the day. Often they even interview the same guests. So, even though Rachel may opt to focus more intently on the Russia connection than the Obamacare repeal debacle, have no fear, the repeal debacle got well covered by all the other shows.
One thing that's a little smelly about this article is knowing how much it delights the right wing to see the left wing media arguing amongst themselves even more. If Trump or the Republicans are concerned that a very popular TV show is focussing too much attention on this Russia thing, this article certainly helps their cause.
Watergate started out as an unbelievable story denied over and over by Nixon and his supporters, The same for Iran-Contra with the Reagan WH. As far-fetched as the Russia collusion story may seem to us today…there is precedent for the far-fetched turning out to be true, and scandalous of epic proportion.
One thing that's a little smelly about this article is knowing how much it delights the right wing to see the left wing media arguing amongst themselves even more. If Trump or the Republicans are concerned that a very popular TV show is focussing too much attention on this Russia thing, this article certainly helps their cause.
… 'cause us "progressives" have to stick together, right? just win that election and the details will sort themselves out!
tell us the one about "perfection" again, i forget how it goes.
I don't know that Rachel is right about the Russia connection or that Aaron is right that she is wrong. I doubt anyone posting to this blog really knows. And I'm actually pleased Aaron is exercising some criticism. No, I'm not trotting out the old saw about perfection being the 'enemy of the good', if that's what you mean. But there are downsides to a lot of factional sniping. There is a little bit of discussion about the content of Aaron's article in these postings, but mostly it' s a lot of pissing, which doesn't do much to elevate the discussion.
if Maddow is engaged, full time, in a propaganda campaign at the behest of Clinton and the DNC, the proposition that "we" should avert our gaze to present a unified front to the "other side" is not just reprehensible, but utterly ignores the fact that the willingness to dispense with the journalistic integrity for the momentary gain of a political group that hardly even pays lip service to real democratic representation is a significant contributing factor our almost complete social and political dysfunction and failure.
you're welcome to hold to the Party line, but since i don't feel that any of the factions actually represent me and my political will or interests, my sniping isn't really factional. it sounds like you're able to deflect any disagreement as mere disagreeableness though, so . . . Party on, Garth.
Please don't confuse MSNBC, DailyKos, or Mother Jones with the left wing, as they are merely Democratic Party hack outlets.
What are some examples of true left wing media outlets then?
there is a difference between far-fetched as protrayed by mere curiosities denied as real evidence emerges and far-fetched as protrayed as a media push. WMD?
Good point.
If there's nothing to the story, why do the GOP participants keep doing things that make them look so damn guilty??
Excellent article. There are many of us that need to learn to recognize, and understand, propaganda.
Well said Libby, thank you.
Sorry, but citing James Clapper as a credible source cuts the legs out from under this story.
Maddow is meticulous. I trust that her public investigation, bolstered by today's findings re Manafort and the Ukranian ledger, will state what is fact, what is not, and what is suspect. Can the Nunes committee make that claim?
(By Steve Contorno on Tuesday, March 11th, 2014):
At the tail end of a rare open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked National Intelligence Director James Clapper whether intelligence officials collect data on Americans.
Clapper responded "No, sir," and, "Not wittingly."
In the following months, a series of news stories fueled by leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that wasn't the case. Reports showed the government was collecting and storing bulk metadata of American phone records, and had methods for capturing a vast amount of email and Internet data as well.
Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked National Intelligence Director James Clapper whether intelligence officials collect data on Americans.
Clapper responded "No, sir," and, "Not wittingly."
What is really puzzling is Wyden knew that Clapper was lying, and did nothing about it.
He couldn't do or say anything about it because it was classified intel.
Wrong. Wyden didn't do anything because he didn't want to. How do you miss stuff like that?
He couldn't do or say anything about it because it was classified intel.
We continue our conversation with former Senator Mike Gravel. In 1971, he took advantage of congressional privilege to disclose the contents of the Pentagon Papers, that were then kept secret. Well, today, four decades later, former Senator Mike Gravel is among those calling on Senator Mark Udall to follow in his footsteps and enter the full Senate report on CIA torture into the Congressional Record.
The only difference between then and now is the disparity in size of the Congressional testicles in play.
And this is why I got rid of cable and television a number of years ago.
The propaganda wars continue.
TI has to pander to the bitter "progressive democrats" who desperately want to save face by blaming all their issues on the "Deep State". If it wasnt for the government we would have a government that works, or something like that. This dovetails beautifully with the alt-right Nazis and their endless stream of propaganda about the wrongs of government and why we need radical change. You see it in the comments everyday. It sounds more and more like people really want a dictatorship.
The cancer has metastasized into all corners of the culture. Now everybody is just arguing who is more guilty and rationalizing their sociopathic behavior as normal. Capitalism at its finest.
"45" and his ilk are really the best thing to happen to the world. Now everybody knows everybody's shit stinks, and everybody is blaming each other for it. Absolutely zero self awareness and mentally ill. We're at a crucial moment in our history and everybody wants to ignore it. It's poetic justice as we watch everything crumble around us as we argue over who started the fire, instead of realizing we're all in the same burning house.
Sums it up. And, the wrong leaders are capitalizing on that confusion.
"But whatever Russia may have done, it was not "international warfare." And it was most likely far less consequential than U.S. interference in other countries over many decades, including Russia itself."
I heard Noam Chomsky make a similar argument recently — that the US has intervened in other democracies at perhaps an even deeper and more destructive level. How does that justify inattention to or even acceptance of what the Russians have allegedly done? How does our Wrong make their Wrong right?
This column seems as obsessed with RM as RM is with Russia– right down to a detailed analysis of air time. What RM is reminding us of is that Trump is not only intellectually and morally illegitimate, but may also be legally and politically illegitimate. I hope this deep rolling wave crests soon and washes him right out of office and into a jail cell. No, I am not ignoring the need for Democratic Party criticism, or for having a plan together for 2018. But Maddow and the Washington Post should nevertheless be congratulated for keeping this vector alive in the minds of the public.
Rachel Maddow is fucking awful. A shrill, angry shrew who can't shut up about Trump's Russia connection. It's all so overdone and stupid. It's not about actually finding any real connection there; rather its all about trying to sling so much shit at Trump that eventually it will snowball and bring Trump down, as it did with Flynn. The problem with this strategy is that using innuendo and lies to bring down Trump only makes liberals and democrats look even worse and more McCarthyesque than ever before, and more pro-war. You really have to be a total asshole to watch Maddow's show, that or an idiot masochist.
Nothing McCarthyesque about it. She's a tv commentator and has no legal authority.
Flush out your headgear. Russia and Putin are a menace.
"Russia and Putin are a menace."
Funny. The last guy laughed when he was met with that statement.
Congratulations Ian! You've just won The Intercept's 'Bozo award' for making the most clueless comment for this week. A quick google search of 'democrats new mccarthyism' reveals countless articles by numerous respected journalists such as Robert Parry making this observation, so yep–it is in fact McCarthyism. You can pick up your plastic 'Bozo' dunce cap prize at the Intercept offices reception desk.
Why are smart women who are outspoken always labeled as angry shrews? I recal this one year where she refused to stop covering BridgeGate. And now two parties have been found guilty and are going to jail. Hmm. What's at stake with this article?
The difference is that the bridge controversy, while stupid and inconsequential, had factual base. The Russia story does not. Maddow and the rest of the media are reporting hearsay and rumor as fact like they are supermarket tabloids.
Well, I have to wonder though. Would the Congress be holding investigations over something that didn't have a factual basis?
Benghazi happened. No one is claiming it didn't. The business deals that Maddow has covered weee in fact made, and the people involved were in fact involved. If you are objecting to Maddow asking how the dots might be connected then that's one thing. But the dots are factual and exist. Arguing then away puts us in a Spicer caregory of fact. And again, the investigations ongoing about our election, and who is involved, are bearing out. I'd really hate to ignore something as huge as having someone who colluded with Russia in the White House, now directing my foreign and domestic policies. That's the far more important piece of the picture and we shouldn't lose sight of it. That question must be resolved. And it's going to take constant focus on it and visibility on it in our fleeting-focus media consumption in order to maintain awareness and avoid distractions.
[quote]Would the Congress be holding investigations over something that didn't have a factual basis?[/quote]
Good point. Congress never wastes time or taxpayer money with stupid partisan power grabs.
The fact is, if there was conclusive proof that Trump is an agent of Russia then it almost certainly would have come out by now because there are too many people who hate Trump (including a lot of the deep state) and too much to be gained from such evidence that SOMEBODY would have spilled the beans if there were any to spill. Since all we have so far is unverified rumors and people playing Six Degrees of Donald Trump, it grows less and less likely with each passing day that there is anything to this story.
The worst part is that the media has chosen the exact time we need them the most to utterly implode and eradicate what little credibility they had left by chasing conspiracy theories like this. Trump is doing real harm to real people and the American people would be better served if the media would focus on that instead of wild fantasies.
See, I read this constant pressure as a response, a long game. Perhaps a response to how the media managed to give Trump free, incessant media coverage that (whether you believe Russia helped or not) won Trump the electoral vote. (Notice he did not win the popular vote by over three million, something other than the Russian question am sure he'd love for us to forget).
I agree it should be thouroughly investigated and we need to see more sides, even though I believe what I believe. I see coverage of some other things, like the midterm races. I agree liberals and Dems should examine some divisions within the party, that was evident when Bernie came on the campaign scene. But instead of hoping the investigations go away and berating one news pundit, known for getting results and who does her homework (instead of manufacturing fake news), let's see if we can't do both this and go to a meeting in our community to get things done. If Maddow is doing her part, I'm not going to criticize. I'm going to say "thanks for being a team player," and do mine. My talents do not lie in discovering the fact that a Russian businessman who, say, bought a costly house from Trump or his pal happens to also be tied to the bank in Cypress currently undergoing scrutiny in an investigation for laundering Russian dollars. Is there a connection to Putin? I don't know. We know Trump has businesses in other countries, some 27 in Russia, and has refused to divest himself from his businesses despite holding the office of POTUS, so it would be silly to say he'd sacrifice those interests and probably could be influenced in that regard. Should I let the question stand and wander away, hoping it isn't true? Seems naive, and like it could be setting myself up for other, nastier surprises down the road.
Why not write to Maddow and ask that she also cover more of these other things? Or write to the networks asking for it? I can't say for sure whether it'll help. But it did seem to do something when I made similar calls to my Congresspeople (yep, I agree, they can get off their duffs and recall they work for me) about Healthcare and other prominent issues.
The constant pressure seems to be making some of them think about their prospects for reelection. If there's this much pressure on Maddow to forget it, and just shut up, then. . . Dividing liberals over what issues to focus on . . . Well, who might that benefit? I'm letting her go to bat on this one.
Can we be sure Maddow isn't a CIA sleeper agent, bent on distracting us from Washington's fascist agenda?
I am a democrat and I can freely admit the party and Clinton made grave mistakes. But the hacking of our election, the promulgation of fake news, the Michael flynn stuff is some of the most scandalaous in the history of our county and deserves ample coverage. She may overdo it sometimes but it deserves the airtime it's getting.
If Rachel Maddow is the "smartest person on TV" then it is patently obvious why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
the clintons represent a certain period in our history that some people just can't let go of .. the mainstream boomer salad days
I've enjoyed these arguments online with normie libs who, when it is pointed out that the Russia thing takes up a lot of energy, respond "we can multi-task."
No. No you can't.
Furthermore, the PURPOSE of the Russia thing is and always has been to provide cover for Democratic Party incompetence, meaning neoliberal incompetence & corruption, meaning resistance to change, meaning excuses for running terribly compromised candidates & keeping people like Chuck & Nancy in charge.
So it is at cross purposes with genuine revitalization and resistance; it's not an effort in conjunction with turning that party around.
The expansion of Russian influence charges to include those unwilling dupes the Bernie supporters, ha ha, merely reinforces the originator of the Russia thing, Hillary herself, who claimed anti-fracking activists were funded by Russia. Even George W. didn't make the swift-boating claims himself; he let underlings do it. Hillary was always the first to crow about how Russia was against her, and she's still making that excuse.
As a result, I don't even like to see Bernie Sanders pay lip service to the Russia thing. He hasn't emphasized it, which is good, and I know that if he actually attacks it he's in for something of a world of shit. But. Better to have shit thrown at you by people who never liked you than people who are disappointed in you.
LOL! Bernie doesn't mention Russian helping of HIS campaign, for the same reason Trump refuses to acknowledge that they helped HIS campaign. The truth is that Bernie received millions of dollar's worth of assistance from both Russian AND GOP trolls pushing anti-Hillary LIES! Bernie even started spreading those lies himself, after the first debate, when he didn't get much traction, by not doing so. Bernie never acknowledged either Russian help, OR GOP help, although it was obvious, from the beginning. He just slyly kept taking advantage of the push he received from both sources. And, as an aside, we STILL have yet to see a complete tax return from Bernie, just like Trump.
Bob, it's Democrats like you that are going to keep Democrats from winning elections in our country.
And that's a good thing. Keep of the good work, TinFoilHat Man!
Another good chuckle! No, it was numbskull Democrats who #1.) didn't vote, #2.) voted 3rd party, or #3.) wrote in Bernie's name, who kept Hillary from winning our last election, or will keep future "D"s from winning elections, they rightly SHOULD win.
Wait, I thought it was the Russkies hacking the election that gave Trump the presidency. Is today's excuse that it was Bernie Bros? Will we be back to blaming Jill Stein tomorrow, James Comey the next day, and millennial women the day after that?
You conviction that the Dems SHOULD be handed victories without having to earn them is rich. What a sense of entitlement.
Rachel Maddow may disprove the old saw that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day…" with her incessant, obsessive coverage of the Trump-Putin connection.
My guess is that the FBI and Congressional investigations will discover that 1) Putin is a mean and nasty guy who interfered with the 2016 election, 2) Russia is pursuing its own national interests and not ours, and 3) there was no direct collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference, and 4) it's time to move on to focus on preventing outside states from messing with our FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!! Big whoop.
Rachel will then move on to shill uncritically for the Dem party on other issues. Not to say she hasn't done some great work on other matters, but her forced, pedantic, labyrinthine coverage of Trump-Putin is wearying.
No I don't believe Assad has or would be stupid enough to use Sarin on his own population. Yes I do believe our spooks have a primed and populated a Syrian false flag factory as Vlads spooks assert. The OPCW needs access now to the first site (southern idlib) and tentatively to every already anticipated subsequent false flag sit https://www.opcw.org/news/article/media-brief-reported-use-of-chemical-weapons-southern-idlib-syria-4-april-2017/.
AGAIN: After four days in Florida which opened with Trumps muted Tomahawk attack China is with us on Korea now. Those are the facts. Shortly thereafter as the US Navy and Air Force dispatch resources to the Korean Peninsula an unusually supportive Chinese Administration (who prior the the US visit had already vowed to cut off N Korea coal imports) have dispatched 150,000 chinese troops on the North Korea / Chinese border prevent a Syria style flood of refugees should war break out. They are even turning back current shipments of coal contracted for before the drop dead date Bloomberg established the Chinese were expected to cease.
The Chinese government is intimately aware of every aspect of Koreas nuclear program and nuclear footprints has joined America on a war footing with North Korea for the forseeable future. The Chinese are working with Trump to screw No Korea now.
Would this have happened under Hillary Rodham?
We can't say definitively whether or not Assad used chemical weapons or not.
After all, Assad may have felt safe using them since Russia is backing him, and he may have assumed Trumps administration wouldn't be willing to upset Putin by intervening.
Would this have happened under Hillary? Maybe not, since Assad would have reason to expect a strong reaction from the U.S. But he may have been omre desperate as well.
Who Knows.
And by bombing the shit out of the alleged site by which chemical weapons were deployed, Trump has effectively prevented any real investigation of the issue
Truth is the first casualty of war.
"We can't say definitively whether or not Assad used chemical weapons or not."
How very true Bob. Seems like we should confirm and verify the authenticity and attribution for the first attack before rushing to judgement on the next one.
"After all, Assad may have felt safe using them since Russia is backing him, and he may have assumed Trumps administration wouldn't be willing to upset Putin by intervening."
Russia was backing Assad in 2013 during the last false flag gas attack on Syrian civilians by US Saudi Israeli backed mercenary Al Queda ISIS Daesch forces using chemical munitions passed through Turkey so that McCain and Clintons preferred terorists could continue crafting home made (non military grade) gas weapons of any ilk on as as needed basis as in as was the case with last weeks attack and any of those to follow.
"Would this have happened under Hillary? Maybe not, since Assad would have reason to expect a strong reaction from the U.S."
Assad, Russia, Iran and Turkey were winning the war. The US had just announced a "no regime change" policy on Syria a few day earlier after they'd finished bombing the hell out of Mosul.
"But he may have been more desperate as well."
Desperate because the Syrian President was (against all odds) actually winning the six year CIA managed civil war against all the Syrian States enemies foreign and domestic AND to add insult to injury the US had just adopted an anti CIA "no regime change" policy on Syria. So the CIA through a fit and staged a "gas" attack but nobody can identify the gas, its source, its delivery mechanism or even the timeline for an impending investigation to establish any of that.
"And by bombing the shit out of the alleged site by which chemical weapons were deployed, Trump has effectively prevented any real investigation of the issue"
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I expect from this point on the UN will want future CIA manufactured and/or fabricated gas attack sites preserved for domestic and international criminal investigations
"Truth is the first casualty of war."
Sounds like a cop out.
After a party loses an election to an opponent who was considered a joke candidate less than year earlier, there would normally be a house cleaning. The Russia card therefore serves a number of useful purposes; it deflects criticism from the DNC and nourishes the membership's hope for the Holy Grail of a Trump impeachment. When this fails, it can at least be used to purge the progressive wing of the party.
Business as usual. Ms. Maddow is just a talking puppet for the party leadership, so it's no use blaming her.
unusually weak take from you
I hate that whole "hate the game not the players" line because in fact to attack the game you really do have to hit the players. People made this same excuse to defend Obama for 8 years.
Millionaire TV host Rachel Maddow has agency if you & I fucking do.
Millionaire TV host Rachel Maddow has agency if you & I fucking do…
A big thumbs up for the agency of "the people" themselves Vic.
Just because she's a millionaire doesn't mean she wouldn't need to auction off her agency. Dollars is the only thing not subject to the law of diminishing marginal utility.
You are both dancing around the crux of the issue here, which is that constant coverage of this "story" is making Maddow even more rich and popular than she already was. 99% of the time, people will do what they see as being in their own best interests. The only way to stop people like Maddow from doing what they do is to convince people that listening to her is not in THEIR best interests. Because it certainly is not. She reminds me of one of those robot overlords from the original Star Trek series, which feeds off of and gains power from the adulation of her people. We need to pull a Kirk and get the people to stop listening to her because that's the only way to defeat her.
Perhaps you need to pay attention to the details a little more. Her stories seem very well sourced and WHAT could be a bigger story than the Russians and Trump team colluding to steal the election. I might as well go to Breitbart if I want to read swill like this.
This IS Breitart Mike. Havent you heard of MITM attacks? Boy what an idiot…
Bigger evidence based stories are everywhere one eyed retarded deep state shills look. Blink.
the BEST sources….
Yes, please leave. You won't be missed.
Would you please give me 2 or 3 well-sourced stories?
Maddow is correct. She's really good. She knows her stuff.
When Maddow says Trump is connected to Russia, you better listen.
She oughta know. She's on the KGB payroll.
sorry, Aaron, but conspiracy theory remains in the eye of the beholder….R M asks the questions that I might ask myself, which , at this point in the fog of obfuscation, the answers open to more questions, and I for one hope that she continues to do so…..as for your piece her, the point offered is so conspicuously rendered with too so many words that it risks sinking into its own obscurity.
There are different kinds of questions. There is a question designed to elicit information. And a question designed to suggest the listener has not really thought the thing through, but you have, thereby throwing the listener into questioning their own thought processes.
And, my favorite, used by interrogators and lawyers in court "You know what that means?…' I'm gonna nail you for picking your feet in Poughkeepsie." (French Connection)
Not a real question, but creating enough confusion so that, if the questioner ever gets around to an genuine question, the person will be so confused that they might agree just to end the thing. Rachel Maddow is especially good at that. If she gets to a real question, let me know.
You can't underestimate the power of SOviet mind control. I voted for Trump and did not even know why and then I remembered I put Russian dressing on my salad the night before. I feel so used and yet, so free at the same time.
Good one!
Next election (if we have one), I'm porking out on Freedom Fries.
What a silly article.
It's tough not to see the connections if you bother to open your eyes.
Colin Powell was right in 2003, then? When MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for DARING to oppose the Iraq War? And…Hillary Clinton? Gung-ho as well.
You cannot see beyond your own Democratic Party tribalism.
Lovely article, actually thoughtful and sharing a story that is getting no coverage.
Great article.
Rachel Maddow was on the list of journalists who used to get personal invites to the Hillary camp for parties where they would then get bribed for favorable coverage. The Russians exposed this collusion through Wikilicks.
Rachel Maddow was on the list of journalists who used to get personal invites to the Hillary camp for parties where they would then get bribed for favorable coverage.
Water guns at the Biden's and tire swings at the McCain's. The fun is bipartisan and it never stops. :-s
> Maddow's influence is well-earned. She frequently brings pivotal national attention to overlooked stories, such as the poisoning of Flint, Michgan's water supply.
if it had happened in a state with a democratic governor, maddow would have ignored it
if it had happened in a state with a democratic governor, maddow would have ignored it
Upside: There are only 16 democratic governors left so she has pretty wide latitude. :-s
Democrats have avoided constructive introspection on their seismic election loss by blaming the Kremlin.
Yes. And yesterday they lost a race that comes as close to a "gimme" in Kansas – one of the reddest of red states – as they're likely to ever get between democrat James Thompson and the Republican candidate, State Treasurer Ron Estes.
The republicans pulled in a shit-ton of big guns while Tom Perez, the Next New Coming of the DNC, declined to even send so much as a penny. Yet still, Thompson, a candidate inspired to run for the first time by Bernie Sanders, kept the race so close that at one point Estes was up by only a single percentage point according to republicans' own internal polling.
After that singularly (Big D) democratic "Talk to the hand" moment of non-support, Chuck Schumer had the balls to tweet the following:
Chuck Schumer?Verified account @chuckschumer
[email protected] fight in Kansas is just the start of what we'll bring to campaigns across the county in 2, 4, 6 yrs & beyond. #KS04
If that's what Schumer calls a fight then a box full of kittens is more dangerous than the democratic party. He deserves the responses he got.
Absolutely, I find it very curious that the result in KS is getting so little attention- especially how the GOP threw everything but the kitchen sink at it, while the Dem's did nothing but some last minute phone-banking. This was bat-shit crazy Republican KS (I live in Kansas City, which is in MISSOURI, btw, which is still Repub bat-shit – not KC, of course- but nothing like KS), the Koch's home district. But the Dem candidate had the mark of the devil per the DNC- a Bernie guy. So no soup for that candidate, and little coverage of a shocking result (even with the loss). If the DNC really cared about winning, they would be looking at this result and be lining up progressive candidates everywhere they could, including here in Mo. where Claire "Bernie = Hammer and Sickle!" McCaskill is going to get slaughtered. Claire, HRC Jr.
It's not getting attention because it's direct evidence of DNC et al failure and no "respectable" media outlet – {cough} MSNBC {cough} – will touch it because it's radioactive.
Matt Stoller has a great tweetstorm here (excerpts):
1. Here's an alt theory about the DCCC. It doesn't exist to win Congressional races.
2. It really exists as a means of helping the existing Democratic House members govern through threats and candidate recruitment.
3. In 2006, the DCCC took credit for a wave election on Iraq. It fought the mention of Iraq and Democrat in campaigns every step of the way.
4. Rahm Emanuel used the DCCC not to win elections, but to choose the people who would take office during that wave.
5. Rahm Emanuel chose people who would not defund the war, would not stand up to Bush, and would work with corporate lobbyists.
6. Many of the 2006 class of Democrats now are corporate lobbyists. So Rahm did his job well. It's just not the job he said he did.
7. Chris Van Hollen used the same model. The Democratic House leadership is dedicated to retaining power for themselves and nothing else.
8. Nancy Pelosi is utterly incoherent. She's not a leader, she's in charge of making sure no other leaders emerge. And on down the line.
9. Had the DCCC gone into Kansas, it's not obvious they would have helped. They might have tried to sabotage the race.
11. Based on the Kansas results, there's likely to be a wave. The DCCC's job is to shape that wave, make sure we don't get any leaders.
15. They can't even imagine why Kansas voters might pick a Dem. It's just not conceivable the notion of leadership, convincing voters.
18. And yes, this is due to concentrations of power. Reflects bigger trends. Pelosi = SF. Hoyer/Van Hollen = outside of DC. Rahm = Chicago.
19. Practically speaking, the DCCC is basically just a bank account full of coastal (and Dallas) money. It doesn't deserve the mystique.
20. News from Kansas is (1) GOP in deep trouble and (2) money isn't as important as it used to be and (3) the DCCC isn't really necessary.
Yusuf Naqvi? @yusuf_naqvi1
Democrats lost Kansas & will continue to lose unless their aging leadership is crushed to pieces, burnt to ashes and scattered to the winds.
Democrats lost Kansas & will continue to lose unless their aging leadership is crushed to pieces, burnt to ashes and scattered to the winds.
Well I've pretty much been saying that, well, since Bill Clinton was head neoliberal in chief.
I almost find it laughable that the Democratic party thinks it will be in a position to challenge elections at the national level over the next 12 years, except via the sheer and utter incompetence and craven mendacity of the Trump administration and its GOP enablers.
And then there's this:
Democrats are beginning to craft an economic message for 2018 that goes beyond the tempting, single-minded strategy of demonizing Donald Trump.
Licking their wounds after an embarrassing showing in November, Democrats vowed to charge into next year's midterms with a proactive sales pitch to voters. While many, including party leaders, have fallen right back into the same anti-Trump pattern they say cost them 2016 in the first place, top Democrats now say they're working on "a strong, sharp-edged, bold economic message," as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer put it Tuesday.
I don't think the Democratic party leadership at the national level understands what the word "bold" actually means, much less to they have any inclination to do anything but rebrand their losing and moral bankrupt neoliberal agenda and strategies, and try and sell it to the American people as "populist".
There are exceptions to that rule who are sitting members of the House and Senate, but when push comes to shove they will be squashed or coopted as leadership sees fit.
LOL. Schumer and his ilk have Biggus Dickus Syndrome. Boldly pronouncing on his and the party's boldiness while the rest of us try to suppress the snickers because we know his given name was really Incontinentia Buttocks. ;-}
Apologies to all. Last night was Monty Python binge night in the Pedinska household. Not my fault it fits so well with current events. :-)
Dems do not want to win with people out of their control. They would rather lose. Thompson was just research for them. They think there is some goofy Rovian formula they can use to craft into a sanitized strategy without actually caring about the humanity behind it.
That said, I blame liberals as well. They ignore the machine that keeps these groups in power. Liberals need to invest in finding great technocrats with good strategy, then, craft an endearing message that speaks to an individual's humanity.
We can't depend on the Dems to lead. The majority of them are just operatives who are there to protect the political industry. They don't see themselves as servants. They all want power and influence at our expense. But, if some people from that group are willing to help, we should take it. Say what you will but picking their brains for what they know about policy, strategy and governing can go a long way. Nevertheless, the Rahm Emanuels of the world are no longer a viable option. I would take a West Virginia Blue Dog over an amoral opportunists like him any day.
Rachel Maddow is a Democratic Party schill.
She'll say anything they tell her to say no matter how wrong or distorted.
She is no voice at all for the Progressives in the US. She is another insider propagandist like the rest.
But she gets all those brilliant MSNBC viewers, almost as popular with that crowd as early bird dinners and Murder She Wrote….
Whatever. Please enjoy the Republican Congress and President Trump. I hope you lose your health care, custody of your children and your rights to privacy and free speech.
What a charming fellow you are! Would you like to wish he dies a horrible death, too? 'Whatever'- the true sign of a well-engaged, working brain….
Ray Butlers is a jealous god. Or he probably works for a jealous goddess.
you want something to cry about…?
She has a PhD in political science and staff who tirelessly scour data for facts. Go ahead and tease her but then your should really ridicule Sean Spencer and Fox fake news. It's jus too convenient to go after one of the few people progressive news moderators. Google is showing me the bottom feeders.
awesome. when the centrists have become the new conservative, you can always win over the constituency they left behind by;
an appeal to establishment authority
the Clintons and the DNC chose their path, rather emphatically, and successfully achieved the political position they set their hearts on. keep telling the plebes to pipe down, the patricians know best… that'll work.
Go ahead and tease her but then your should really ridicule Sean Spencer and Fox fake news.
Abuser: You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!
Customer: What!? I came in here for an argument!!!
Abuser: Oh!, Oh, uh, I'm sorry, this is Abuse!
If you want Ridicule of Sean Spencer [sic] that's four stories down and one day ago. ;-}
"spencer for hire"
"Spenser with an 'S', like the poet."
"when we find ourselves amid the creations of Spenser, when our companions are Faith and Mercy, or Injustice and Despair, the lights in which we have this strange company are so varied and discordant, that at length the mind, tired of the continual conflict, seeks for relief from the ready suggestions of incredulity"
Frustrating whataboutery. Maddow is a tenacious newswoman who is given the latitude to choose what *her show* covers. I notice this story, despite much hair splitting, doesn't reveal a single inaccurate report. She doesn't need to be micromanaged by this writer or any of her other (overwhelmingly male, but I'm sure that is just a coincidence) critics.
Maddow and much of the self-styled "liberal" media has gone the way of the Fox/Rovians, whose primary tactic is the degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio of public discourse. interestingly, in embracing the Russian conspiracy schtick they've also perfectly exemplified Trump's own method of smearing and amplification of ambiguous and unsubstantiated claims.
i have people looking into it now, i'm told by reliable sources – the BEST sources – that Obama is a Kenyan muslim from outer space. we'll be releasing the findings of the investigation soon – any day now – and i think all of you are going to be very surprised. i won't be surprised. i knew this from the start, but my people are looking into it….
I used to like Rachel Maddow. After her whining and Bernie bashing during the last primaries and election I can no longer watch her. She has become the corporate shill she once railed so proudly against. She is no progressive and it's an insult to progressives to call her that. I guess everybody has their price. Hers is 30 grand a day from MSNBC. That's 40 million a year. Think that doesn't influence her?
Source for this absurdly high number? If so, that's dispicable and insane.
I heard somewhere she gets approximately $30,000 per show. I think that comes to about $7-8 million a year. Still seems high though…
Source for this absurdly high number?
Even if you don't go all in with this website as a source, which says that her salary at MSNBC is 7 million per year, there is no reason to doubt the number, because it's relatively typical of the over paid TV "news" pundits on cable and network.
My personal opinion of her act now is that it is indeed an act. If you watch those clips, perhaps she has sold herself on her own act, but to me it is as obvious as can be that she is putting on a show. She repeats the same body language and hyperbolic adjectives and phrases constantly.
I used to like Rachel Maddow. After MSNBCs treatment of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Wikileaks in 2013 I could no longer watch her.
Also I saw her tweets bashing Lesbians for Lipstick. That was a dealbreaker for me.
Well that just about does it for me and the Intercept. Felt like journalistic jealousy with lot's of whining and: "What if…" What if…" substantiations. Although I don't consider articles like this "Investigative Journalism"…maybe I just came to the wrong site. Disappointed. No…don't even suggest it. Not one of her fans.
Yeah sorry about that Matt. Glenn Greenwald is the exception to Pierre Omyidars policy which emphasizes the hiring youthful aspiring casting couch ready russophobic stenomyidargraphers eac of whom chomping at the bit to prove how much their inner collection of Rachael Maddow russian nesting dolls can reveal to the world about Susan Rice, Project Dragnet, Dennis Montgomery, Vault 7 umbrage marble and so on.
Maddow has become the Glenn Beck of the Democrats, and MSNBC has become the Democrats' version of Fox Noise Channel.
I can understand the temptation to play the game, only from the other team, but it is not any more interesting or probative or persuasive (to me) that the sneering incredulous face, nudge-nudge innuendo, and sweeping contempt for the opponent emanates from "my" people, the ones who don't believe that all problems can be solved by eliminating corporate regulations.
It's a revolting game, and people who claim to have the moral high ground should stop playing it.
But apparently that is not possible, at least not on cable TV.
Notice the use of ridiculous hyperbole? This is Greenwald's technique too. Never address the actual facts or present an evidentiary rebuttal to refute the charges against Russia just deny there is any evidence and exaggerate everything into ridiculous hyperbole that isn't an argument and restate the issue in absurd exaggeration that is nothing but mocking.
No, it's simply calling B.S. what it is. Your party ran a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. Clinton ignored the rust belt states like Wisconsin, thinking she didn't have to go there since the state hadn't gone Republican in a while. Clinton was the ultimate establishment politician running in an anti-establishment election year. Getting caught in many scandals before the primaries were even over, rewarding her cronies at the DNC who violated the party's own charter to rig the primaries in her favor, these and other real issues rightly gave voters the impression that the Clintons are hopelessly, criminally corrupt, and they did not want more corruption. Your candidate let Drumpf steal the moral high ground and let him pander to the disenfranchised working class that has been devastated by decades of corporate trade policies that have left millions permanently unemployed or under employed and suppressed wages. Clinton was the chief proponent of those policies during the election.
Basically, Democrats are whining because they can't fathom how their diva could possibly have turned off so many voters. So they're blaming everyone except themselves for blowing what should have been a shoe-in election. It seems Democrats would rather lose to Republicans forever than win with actual progressives.
You are again ignoring the reporting and switching to the standard blama Clinton / Obama meme for everything.
Yesterday she reported that Carter Page was/is under investigation from a FISA warrant. This is a fact and not hyperbole.
She does focus on the endless Russian connections that seem to keep coming true, but isn't opening her show every day stating that Trump is 100% guilty of conspiring with Putin for business kickbacks.
Greenwald / Tabbi are basically doing the same thing as what they are accusing her of doing: taking much of her reporting based in facts and pawning it off as mass Russkie hysteria.
Blah blah blah. Look, the Democrats ran a fatally compromised candidate knowing, but not caring, that she'd cost them the election, because it was more important to the Democrats to defeat the left than to win against whatever troglodyte the GOPhers put up. Blame Russia all you want, but in the end it was the Democrat establishment, not the voters, who decided the nominee and ran such a poor campaign that they couldn't even beat a joke of a candidate like Drumpf. I'll reiterate: CLINTON LOST TO DONALD F***ING DRUMPF. Hell, I could've run a better campaign than Clinton did, and I'm just a broke-ass guy from Ohio who's never been elected to anything other than precinct committeeman. She had the media, the establishment from both major parties, the full support of Wall Street, the surveillance state, the Pentagon, and what did she do with it all? She pissed it away on robotic talking points, and then sabotaged her own campaign by getting caught in scandal after scandal and rewarding the very people who helped her cheat her way to the nomination. She ruthlessly attacked her own party's base and wasted everything trying to pander to Drumpf's cynically thinking if she ran far enough to the right they'd embrace her. Hell, Schumer was bragging that for every working stiff lost, the Dems would pick up two Republicans from the suburbs. Well, guess what? They didn't pick up those suburban Republicans, and Drumpf grabbed up the working stiffs.
You've got to be the dumbest, most clueless mother***er to run a campaign like that, and Clinton did exactly that and proved her own unfitness for the office. The hag needs to be rotting behind bars for the rest of her worthless existence alongside her pals Donnie, Georgie, Dickie, and Barry, for war crimes. Instead the Democrats will run her again in 2020 having learned absolutely nothing, and in the meanwhile she'll just go on whoring herself out to Wall Street raking in the bribes and speaking fees and trying like hell to goad the U.S. into open warfare with Russia, a NUCLEAR power.
Are Clintonites seriously THAT nuts? I guess so.
Did you read the article? The headline was spot on, it was packed with evidence that Maddow is obsessed with Russia. And Greenwald does nothing but talk facts. Go away.
How do you refute vapor? There is no 'there' there. Btw, where it is possible, I do believe some refuting has been done, like pointing out that the RT stuff in the unclassified 'report' was ludicrous, including the minimal penetration by RT of the US media market, plus the fact that they referred to a 'new' RT show that had been CANCELLED in 2014. I will be back shortly with a link, will take all of two seconds….
Also see the stories LINKED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE!
How do you refute vapor?
In our household, the general course of action is….to blame it on the dog. ;-}
Yes, especially if it's a Borzoi. Seriously, all of them are Russkie spies, just very cleverly disguised.
Your household sounds like a fun, funny place. I'm picturing a dog with a constant goofy smile. I bet it's a lab or some type of terrier.
Actually, it's a Shiba Inu with a goofy grin and Yodoge ears.
Her alter ego's name is Snortapus Rex:
Again, most of the evidence is 'secret, so we can't give any details' or so vague that it is impossible to refute, but you said 'his is Greenwald's technique too. Never address the actual facts or present an evidentiary rebuttal to refute the charges'. Took me a about two minutes to find these-
This is Greenwald's technique too.
This approach has consequences as peers here feel personal attacks are likewise justified against commenters (like myself) who have the teremity to voice dissident opinions.
The lack of civility that accompanies many of these imitation attacks actually undermines the entire premise of free speech. As we see in the larger domain, the possibility for agreement is sacrificed for reasons both obvious and hidden.
This article today is an example of poor journalism driven by a tacit ideology.
I expect the comments to follow that lead.
"Concern trolling?" You mean pointing out that this theory is being presented as hard news despite a single piece of even soft evidence thus far? That's called an interest in truth and putting the respect for facts before an agenda. Reporters used to live for it. But Maddow, clearly not.
I don't understand how anyone refers to Clapper as a viable source. He lied about gathering information on Americans – and looked so truthful. So when a writer cites Clapper – I have no idea if what is said is accurate.
It's interesting watching how some at TI spend more time covering the media's coverage of possible Trump-Russian collusion rather than reporting on, investigating if something did in reality happen between Team Trump and Team Putin.
Instead, we get the laziest form of journalism: media criticism or media journalism, which usually means merely "reporting" on what other journalists have written. Yes, we all should be more media savvy about how the news is reported and how events are interpreted, and how biases are implanted.
But given the questions surrounding WikiLeaks weaponizing leaks from the DNC and how those leaks were allegedly provided by agents of the Russian governments, you would think that this outlet would be interested in doing some original reporting.
But no; The Intercept, which was founded on breaking the story about Snowden and the NSA, has decided to report on the media's reporting or coverage of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
They are ridiculous. This article is like Greenwald speaking through a ventriloquist.
You point about them not actually doing any actual investigating is spot on. They will probably say what Assange said. "We don't speak Russian". Very convenient. They are ideologically opposed to any criticism of Russia, just like Assange. They try to cloak it in anti imperialism, but it's actually anti Western ideology.
Greenwald has a fixation on poor little Russia getting some bad press. It's like it's personal to him. F*cking ridiculous.
The money they spent to crank out this concern trolling could have been spent on some actual important issue.
So that's really NeoLiberalInCalif then right?
No that's legitimate criticism of concern trolling the one show that JUST HAPPENS to be ideologically opposed to Greenwald's Leave Russia Alone fetish.
Greenwald's Leave Russia Alone fetish.
The same Leave Russia Alone Greenwald that wrote this?
A formal, credible investigation into all these questions, where the evidence is publicly disclosed, is still urgently needed. That's true primarily so that conspiracies no longer linger and these questions are resolved by facts rather than agenda-driven anonymous leaks from the CIA and cable news hosts required to feed a partisan mob.
Some of the reporters here properly smell a rat. The media is under a lot of pressure from Democrat and other establishment operatives to provide cover for the actual corruption revealed in the Podesta emails. You are obviously bought this BS hook, line, and sinker.
Yes, I'm an obvious dupe of Democratic Party propaganda. Yes, "The media is under a lot of pressure from Democrat and other establishment operatives" wastes no time in proclaiming how presidential Trump is when he does something un-Trumpian. I guess it it the spell of Sean Spicer.
About The Intercept
"The Intercept is dedicated to producing fearless, adversarial journalism. We believe journalism should bring transparency and accountability to powerful governmental and corporate institutions, and our journalists have the editorial freedom and legal support to pursue this mission."
MSNBC fits neatly into the "powerful corporate institution" box….
Thought for the day: if you don't understand what site you're on, then maybe you shouldn't comment? ¯\_(?)_/¯
The Intercept was founded by Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill to producing fearless, adversarial journalism.
it's funny, i would have said that the abject failure of the 4th Estate to do its proper job, its role as stenographer for the WH and Pentagon at crucial points in time having supplanted recognized standards of journalism, the partisan bickering and hatchet-jobs during the last election while refusing to issue honest, transparent declarations of intent and association by way of specific endorsements, etc were all legitimate issues given just how threadbare our sad old cloak of democracy has become.
to each their own, i guess.
I think TI is falling into the same trap as MSM did with 9-11. They got a huge high off of the Snowden story and have been riding the buzz for years. Now they criticize other MSM in an effort to distance themselves from the same exact behavior they're doing.
Capitalism corrupts everyone given enough time. TI is a business too, and like all 24 hour news networks, when there's no sotry you gotta "find" one.
Social media really is becoming a better news source. When you don't have a profit motive to generate content, then you're free of bias to the profit game.
well one part of your comparison is on point; most of the media are shirking proper journalistic due diligence regarding the Russian Menace in much the same way as they did following 9/11 and the Arab hordes coming to steal our wimmins.
so many American Liberals presume to look down their noses at the head-up-the-ass syndrome of Republicans and the media generally, as directed by their ideological overlords. they speak and posture as if no reasonably informed and moderately intelligent person would ever fall for such transparent shenanigans again, but look! they fall in line with the rest, as predictably as the changing tides.
Fancy concern trolling. Omidyar should be very pleased with your "journalism.
Carter Page has a continuing FISA warrant. Comey says the election is being investigated by counterintelligence, including possible collusion of Trump campaign and on and on.
Your concern trolling for Russia is pathetic.
If the Russians were involved indirectly (Assange has said they were not the direct source), we should be praising them for doing a better job than our media at revealing the corruption of the Democrat Party. As far as I am concerned the party in attacking the messenger is showing itself to be completely irredeemable. Good riddance!
Oh yeah, let's all stand and salute as we praise the Russians for interfering in our election. Where do these people come from?
You obviously believe every word of what the main-stream news media says. Please, for your own sake, check out other news sources instead of relying on government propaganda. You'll get a much wider perspective.
You know what condescending twat means? Look it up.
You do know that there is actual evidence that the DNC interfered in "our election". But your going to ignore that and instead go chasing a scapegoat pushed on the media by the same crew that has run the Dems into a nightmare corporatist party.
"condescending twat" lol funny you would say that, but I think that applies more to you then Chris.
Thanx orez. You're my man, or woman, as the case may be.
Assange has repeatedly assured folks that he uses masking techniques that make it impossible for him to know his sources.
Are you calling Assange a liar?
Time to consider ridding myself of Comcast and its filthy subsidiaries.
Maddow does fixate on particular issues – the New Jersey bridge or the silly fool Governor of Alabama – but in the long term, her work turns out to be accurate. I expect her interest in the Trump/Russia thing will pay off too in the long run
Mia Culpa.
Great timing on this with Carter Page story.
How long before the theory that Nixon was deposed by Russian 'meddling' gets floated. I mean, if the notion that revealing wrongdoing had to have been the work of foreign agents, wouldn't that mean that 'Deep Throat' was a Russian mole, duping Woodward, Bernstein, and the Post and successfully undermining American democracy?
It would be much more appropriate to talk about Nixon being the preferred choice of MK Ultra, after they got rid of JFK, RFK, MLK and the attempt on GW.
I never quite understood why the dems look for conspiracy where it doesn't exist rather those behind the grassy knoll, where it did exist.
If the country ever truly understood what the CIA did back then, and how they supported, and continue to support, the war party, the country would rid itself of the CIA and the GOP.
The NBC emphasis on Russia is more about obscuring the real infiltration of the the White House by the Israeli lobby. While looking under every bed for Russian spies, they are deliberately overlooking the capture of the government by Israel.
I concur..I read her book "Drift" 5 years ago, about the US Military .
Since then , she's either followed the money to the right, or has been pushed to the right by other journalists exploiting that emptied niche creating new outlets, like TI
Currently listening to The Intercepted podcast..it's typical ,classic Scahill…
HOWEVER, omitting the taboo's is still in force..At the beginning of the podcast, he listed a few false flag episodes in US History, selectively ommiting contriversy..
Why it is 'safe" to mention Saudi Arabia in cahoots with Wahabi's ..it is still verboten to mention Zionists, 9/11..in the same sentence without being considered a kook
A guest on the podcast, Dennis Kusinish came close, but never mentioned Zionists and onky mentioned 9/11 in passing linking it with Al Qeada