Rachel Maddow, the left's powerhouse on cable, doubles down on the collusion angle

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

[BigmanPigman]

1. Here are her 15 questions from last night's show....

1. “Why did Mueller not decide on obstruction of justice?”

2. “Did Mueller expect Barr to decide on obstruction?”

3. “Should Barr have decided on obstruction?”

4. “Did Mueller want to protect a future grand jury?”

5. “Why did Barr consult the DOJ office of legal counsel before deciding about obstruction?”

6. “What will be briefed to the intelligence committees and Gang of Eight?”

7. “Was there a full investigation of Trump’s intent regarding obstruction?”

8. “Were Trump’s finances part of the investigation?”

9. “Will we see the Mueller investigation scope memo?”

10. “Will we see Trump’s written responses to Mueller?”

11. “Will the Mueller report be released?”

12. “Will Mueller testify to Congress?”

13. “Will Congress see Mueller’s underlying evidence?”

14. “Will ongoing investigations be affected?”

15. “Will Trump recognize Russia attacked our election?”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-poses-15-questions-raised-by-the-barr-report-why-did-mueller-not-decide-on-obstruction/

[PunkinPi]

19. Thank you for posting, I was hoping to find it somewhere. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. click that link -- it tells mediaite you're interested!

Thanks BigmanPigman for finding and sharing that!

[BigmanPigman]

24. I can't take credit, a fellow DUer posted it for me last night.

Frogmarch gets the "thanks".

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11957259

[Gothmog]

27. For this thread

Link to tweet

[Hermit-The-Prog]

30. bet she and her team came up with more since then

[onetexan]

2. Keep it up Rachel!!

The trout in Tennessee will always be there for you once all of this is over

[allgood33]

3. We and some the media are fighting back hard and they have the evidence that is in plain sight

to butress our argument about obstruction and the very biased and unprofessionsl Barr. We should not let this go.

Trump cannot use the Mueller report to bash Dems for 2020 because the public has not seen it in its entirety. The more Trump bashes the Dems, the more the debate rages and the lnoger he keeps the real plain sight collusion and obstruction before the people. No amount of spin can erase these facts, actions, and behavior from memory. Only the liars will lie about not believing what was before their very eyes and ears. CONTINUE THE FIGHT!!

[Gregory Peccary]

15. "Trump cannot use the Mueller report for 2020 because the public has not seen it in its entirety"

Hell, nobody has seen a word of it let alone in it's entirety.

[Iliyah]

4. I know one thing, I personally have to sit in front of my TV

glued to her talking because if I am distracted for one second I fear I will lose pertinent information. She is outstanding.

She like millions know that t-rump colluded and obstructed justice. It's a matter of time when t-rump is gone.

[leftieNanner]

11. Me too!

Which is why, during March Madness, I have to go watch Rachel downstairs because my husband keeps switching channels "during the commercials". I can't take the chance of missing ONE SECOND!

[FailureToCommunicate]

28. I could be wrong, but I think Rachel went the entire HOUR without commercials last night.

AND, often her "A Block" at the beginning of the show goes twenty minutes or so without commercial breaks.

[leftieNanner]

29. I think she had a few commercials last night,

but certainly went beyond the A block into the B and C!

[trueblue2007]

5. Put Rachel on the Supreme Court !!!

[NewJeffCT]

20. oh, I like that idea

she's 45 years old according to Wikipedia. Say the Democrat wins in 2020 and Dems take the Senate 51-49. RBG retires in Feb or March of 2021 and 47 year old Maddow is seated on a 50-50 vote with the VP breaking the tie in favor (no filibuster since Mitch nuked it... assuming Manchin votes against Maddow)

47 years old could be a good 40 years on the court.

[trueblue2007]

31. She sure is intelligent enough !!

[amywalk]

33. Impeach Kavannaugh!

[justie18]

6. But

Most of her questions were about the obstruction part, not the coordination. She never mentioned the very narrow definition of coordination stated in Barr's footnote. Also, the espionage investigation, which rarely ends in indictments, per Frank Figliuzzi of FBI counterintelligence division.

[Farmer-Rick]

16. Yeah, she is good but she isn't a substitute for doing your own research

Thanks for those nuances. Very informative.

Do you know I just read a front page (on the web) story from the Hill. They say the orange fat traitor in the WH is owed an apology from fake news and MSNBC. An apology because he asked for Russia's help, Russia actively worked to rig the election for him, he benefited from Russia's help and then he fired the guy investigating Russian involvement. Geez, it looks like the Traitor Trump lovers...Russians?...are out in force.

How many times have the RepubliCONS claimed some report or document showed Trump was exonerated, or showed Dems were totally off base, but when the documents came out, it did no such thing? Barr's report is just another lie.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

23. he also paid Russia for their help

Don't forget his (illegal) refusal to impose sanctions and his removal of sanctions. That was a big pay-back to his master Putin.

[BigDemVoter]

7. I feel so much gratitude for this woman.

She is brilliant and tenacious. Pussy Grabber and his band of repigs won't be able to break the law with impunity much longer.

[iluvtennis]

8. And as she said last night, it's the Barr Report. We haven't seen

the Mueller report.

[IndyOp]

9. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is feeling the fear and doing it anyway...

Her doubling-down is essential at this moment.

Barr creating that summary so quickly - and appearing to be solicitous to the Congress and citizens - gives the right an opportunity to engage in a PR stunt, to emphasize that it's all over, nothing to see here folks. A few days go by and journalists are all covering another story. It could happen.

Rachel ->

[leftieNanner]

12. How could any human being

read and consume 22 months worth of evidence and information in 48 hours?

He must have done Evelyn Wood, like, TEN TIMES!

[lagomorph777]

10. Shame on the Washington Post for ignoring her actual questions.

Are they saying they don't care about the answers to any of those questions? Are they saying they trust an A.G. who was appointed because he publicly promised to dismiss Mueller's findings no matter what? Has the Washington Post any shame?

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. I'm glad someone out there isn't caving immediately

My gawd its sickening to watch the other shows scramble to get back to their false equivalency MO. Next thing I'm expecting is "Maybe he still could be a great President".

[manor321]

14. Damn right!

We need to see the Mueller report and the evidence he listed on the side of collusion.

[onit2day]

17. Left out her reporting on all the convictions, indictments & court proceedings

related to the Russian Mueller investigation or were these included in the amount of episodes dedicated to Mueller's investigation. The only "lies" here all belong to Trump. Not how innocent people act. So why waste effort chastising Maddow?

[MFM008]

18. no wonder the "indignant" trump humping

oatmeal brains want her to resign..

.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Looks like she's doubling down on the obstruction angle. Not the collusion angle. nt

[yaesu]

25. She is as fair, as good a person as anyone I have seen in MSM

reminds me of the respect & admiration I have for Walter Cronkite & Dan Rather.

[Silver Gaia]

26. My DVR is set to record Rachel every night, and

Lawrence as well (she often runs over into his hour a few minutes). She is can't-miss viewing for my hubby and I. She helps keep us sane.

[UniteFightBack]

32. She's right!!! All these dumbasses applegizing...FOOLS. Applegizing for WHAT? Not chargeable

collusion? We need more laws. Sorry but this should be illegal.