Rachel Maddow Has Lost Her Mind

[gab13by13]

She asked the question if the Trump problem could be settled politically. Trump agrees not to run for president, in exchange, the charges are dropped against him.

This has to be the dumbest idea that I have heard since Trump ran for president.

Rachel has lost her mojo, she has morphed into a history teacher (I love history teachers) comparing what happened to Spiro Agnew with Trump's situation is nonsense.

So DOJ drops all charges and Trump just endorses another Nazi to run for president.

I am really shaking my head thinking about this.

[lark]

1. Even the great ones have off days.

I hope this was Rachels' blooper and she's already recovered.

[we can do it]

10. See post 4.

[FSogol]

2. Nonsense. There is a historic precedent: Spiro Agnew.

That's exactly what happened before.

[MaryMagdaline]

28. Correct. Rachel is steeped in the history of that deal.

[mucifer]

3. they had too much time to fill last night. I was a bit pissed they had Eric Holder on to

discuss the supreme court voting case and refused to talk to him about it. They only talked to him about the trump cases.

They could have given him 2 minutes to give his opinion.

[hippywife]

4. She wasn't endorsing that.

She used the analogy of Spiro Agnew's case when the DOJ agreed to drop charges if he resigned as the closest thing we have to the case for the Former Oaf of Office. She explicitly even said that she didn't endorse that happening, but said mentioned that the DOJ may look for a political way to handle the issue of convicting a former president.

[Demsrule86]

27. Agnew was a Vice-President...whole different kettle of fish. And why even bring it up?

I do not listen to Rachel myself.

[hippywife]

35. As I said above...

she brought it up as the only analogy we have in this country of an actual indictment and possible criminal charges brought against someone in an executive position in the White House.

Maybe you should listen to it before being critical when you don't know what the discussion was about.

[Ocelot II]

37. Because it's the only historical precedent.

And if you don't listen to Maddow anyhow, why do you care? Maybe you should; she's smart and thoughtful and offers ideas that don't fit into neat little bumper sticker sayings.

[Johonny]

39. He had to accept one felony charge, though.

I don’t think Trump could do that before his other case got settled.

[ecstatic]

5. Yikes. Glad I missed that. I thought someone

mentioned that Rachel and Lawrence were talking about Nixon not being held accountable, which led to trump. Seems weird that she would suggest a continuation of that.

[we can do it]

9. She didn't- the know-it-alls hear what they want to hear.

[gab13by13]

19. Really?

The comparison of Agnew to Trump diminishes what Trump has done to this country.

If we need to look at history regarding Trump then we should be looking at Mussolini not Agnew.

[Caliman73]

57. It is too bad you missed it.

And too bad you are taking someone else's interpretation on it.

Maddow did not suggest anything of the sort. She was trying to make an analogy for an unprecedented situation. She was talking to a respected colleague and having a wonkish discussion about a complex and fraught issue.

O'Donnell answered the analogy extremely well with the idea that the DOJ would not consider the deal they made with Agnew because it would open a new precedent where the DOJ would become a gate keeper for political candidacy and they do not want to do that.

It was a very interesting discussion.

I think that emotions can run high and tend to disrupt rational interpretation of ideas at times.

[Ocelot II]

6. She just posed the question, which is likely to come up anyhow

in light of the Spiro Agnew deal. That doesn't mean she thinks it should happen; and she certainly understands that it wouldn't fly with DoJ.

[hlthe2b]

7. Exactly what Geraldo Rivera suggested...

But, I am only really disappointed in Rachhel's obliviousness and naivete if she was posing it as more than a "devil's advocate"-type question.

[Ocelot II]

14. She was neither oblivious nor naive. She raised the question in reference to

the deal that was made with Spiro Agnew, about whom she produced a lengthy, in-depth podcast, "Bag Man." Since there is a historical precedent for the deal (Agnew, accused of bribery, pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned from the vice presidency), and because she had written about it extensively, it follows that she'd ask the question. She wasn't endorsing any such deal, just speculating about whether it could happen.

[hlthe2b]

18. As I said, I didn't see the segment nor the context so the big "IF" it were NOT Devil's Advocacy...

It sounds as though the latter was exactly what it was--just posing the question in the context of possible outcomes. And yes, I too listened to Bag Man... twice.

[agingdem]

30. that's how I feel..

this is like an MSNBC legal contributor "offering" Trump's attorneys a possible defense...Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion..Trump stole classified documents..one of these things is not like the other..Trump's criminality stands alone ... not everything harkens back to the past...

[brooklynite]

8. This is the essence of why I don't watch news personalities.

Not her opinion but the reaction to it. Too many people seem to need to listen to someone because they always agree with his/her opinions, and how dare their opinions differ.I don't need to be reassured that my opinions are the correct ones.

[Ocelot II]

17. I like Maddow because she's thorough and doesn't always toe the party line.

And also because she drives people nuts with her scholarly discussions, which are apparently too thorough for those with Twitter-length attention spans.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

23. I enjoy the discussions because sometimes

I don't exactly know where she's going with it, than afterwards I say "Aha, that's it!" LOL I watch too much Columbo

[bigtree]

25. but here you are in a community of opinions

...responding to them.

What makes Maddow's opinionating different?

[Chakaconcarne]

11. She asked the question, which any good journalist would do...

She was not advocated for or promoting the idea...

[Spazito]

12. Her podcast was about Agnew so I can see why she used him...

as an example. I saw her discussion with Lawrence simply as a discussion and not one where she was recommending any agreements that should be made with trump. She gave her thoughts, Lawrence gave his and, imo, it was simply an interesting back and forth and nothing more than that.

[Doc Sportello]

13. I think she is more of an institutionalist than people realize

She comes from a military family and conservative upbringing. The roots of her liberalism I believe has more to do with her sexual orientation, understandably so, but she is not a left wing radical as the right tries to portray her.

I saw that when she made the comparison with Agnew and thought, ok, Rachel, here we go with the "we can't tear the country and its institutions apart" meme that many so-called centrists or old-style conservatives will be touting in the months ahead. Yeah let's not hold dump accountable - same excuses made at the time of Agnew and Nixon.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

16. And if she was a left wing radical

Little chance she would be on a corporate news program.

[Doc Sportello]

26. The right wingers don't let facts like that stop them

They still will use her - and the fact she is lesbian - which I think is a big part of their approach in making her out to be subversive.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

29. Yep, they use anything they can to smear n/t

[Freethinker65]

15. More likely Trump will use documents (and/or copies) he still illegally possesses and knowledge of

Knowledge of who already has seen or he gave copies of documents to, as negotiating tools.

National security needs to know who besides Trump had access to the documents and/or the copies made (they could be anywhere). National Security needs to know if there are any more outstanding documents that could do our nation immense harm.

[Merlot]

20. Sexist headline.

[Ocelot II]

38. In what way?

[JohnSJ]

21. The DOJ won't do that for the simple reason that from the DOJ's perspective this isn't about

politics, but a violation of the law.

I think the real speculation is would they accept some sort of plea bargain to avoid an expensive jury trial that might result in a hung jury, since a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict. I think that would depend on how solid the evidence they have is, and it is hard for me to believe that they would not have even indicted if the evidence wasn't solid.

[bigtree]

22. she posited something you disagreed with, and so she's 'lost her mind"

...sorry, no dice for this attack on Maddow.

[gab13by13]

47. If she wanted to compare Trump historically,

using Agnew as an historical example diminished what Trump did to our country. I would have compared Trump with Mussolini if I felt compelled to use an historical perspective.

[getagrip_already]

24. She didn't say that, but it is a reasonable question what "deals"...

The doj will extend to tfg, if any.

In agnews case, the govt was in a bind. Even convicting him would not remove him as vp, and they needed both him and nixon out.

If nixon resigned while Agnew was still vp, wit would have been a disaster. Agnew was worse than tfg, and more competent.

But it is still a good question. What deals will doj consider?

[Raine]

31. It's OK to pose the question but he would never agree to it

his ego is too big to not run again.

[vanlassie]

32. Rachel Maddow has not "lost her mind."

What would prompt a DUer to exaggerate this way about a solidly Democratic reporter?

[LiberalFighter]

43. I agree.

[Renew Deal]

33. Check Eliot Spitzer

[asiliveandbreathe]

34. Listened to Rachels podcast Bagman..the dangers of the DOJ NOT prosecuting..

It is helpful to have a reference point where law and politics converge..and Rachels bagman podcast tells the story, again, of the DOJ not prosecuting -

I say again because in Rachels podcast ULTRA..

..

she tells the story of sitting members of Congress aiding and abetting a plot to overthrow the government. Insurrectionists criminally charged with plotting to end American democracy for good. Justice Department prosecutors under crushing political pressure. Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra is the all-but-forgotten true story of good, old-fashioned American extremism getting supercharged by proximity to power.

When extremist elected officials get caught plotting against America with the violent ultra right, this is the story of the lengths they will go to… to cover their tracks

. True story..

Sound familiar..

[themaguffin]

36. Anytime, that proposition comes up, it infuriates me. It's unacceptable & the 70s are why...

...we are here.

First Agnew and then Ford pardoning Nixon.

If there had been accountability then, maybe there would have been for Reagan, the Bushes and now trump... assuming trump even got elected in such a timeline.

[gibraltar72]

40. I read that as a hypothetical.

Lawrence said that offer would come from defense.

[ananda]

41. Rachel generally thinks of her audience as children.

I have always found her manner VERY annoying.

[niyad]

52. I have never ever felt that, just the opposite, that she just wants to share

knowledge.

[ananda]

61. I didn't say her motives weren't good. I just got tired of her talking down..

to us and repeating simple stuff ad infinitum.

[CloudWatcher]

63. +1

I love Rachel. But I can't watch her show without getting irritated at all the repetition. And then my wife gets po'd at me for my interrupting the show to complain

[LiberalFighter]

42. In a way that is what happened to Agnew.

But the DOJ will not make that an option.

[stumpysbear]

44. Wouldn't that just prove that it's a political prosecution? WTF?

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Boy, you sure have selective listening skills

She wasn’t suggesting this as a recommended course of action, only that his lawyers could seek it as part of a plea bargain.

Separately from the criminal prosecutions, she noted that there would still need to be a “political” solution, whether that be Trump dropping out or the GOP refusing to nominate him, implying such a solution would now be necessary for the GOP to remain a viable party in presidential politics.

We shall see if she is right.

[Paladin]

46. I have no problem with discussing political deals.

The kind of deals that are absolutely certain to be considered, in the future.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of such measures. I hope trump spends the rest of his corrupt life in solitary confinement.

[gab13by13]

48. Any deal to drop all charges against Trump in exchange for his not running for president,

is not just idiotic, it is un-American. A Donald Trump not held accountable for his crimes is a threat to our national security.

The idea of dropping the charges against him is mind boggling. Would it even be legal for DOJ to make such an agreement?

[JI7]

49. Huh ? She discusses things that could happen. She isn't calling for this

[617Blue]

50. I WANT him to keep running for president. nt

[CincyDem]

51. Agnew in '73 will become a playbook going into 2024...for TFG.

Recall, Nixon was the real bad guy in '73 but Agnew wasn't a whole lot better (and some would argue worse).

In DoJ's assessment at the time, they had to push Agnew out of office before the impeachment ball started rolling on Nixon for two reasons. First, having Agnew waiting in the wings would likely be a factor in any impeachment action by congress because many might see trading Nixon for Agnew as out of the frying pan and into the fire. Second, if Nixon were impeached, the odds of Agnew being impeached were practically zero. He was a bad guy but his crimes probably didn't rise to the level of congress sequentially impeaching two presidents.

Elliot Richardson's goal as AG was to push Agnew out as the first step in holding Nixon accountable. And 10 days after Agnew resigned, Richardson paid the price in the Saturday Night Massacre.

Fast forward 50 years. I hate the idea of it but we have to admit there's a measurable possibility TFG could be back in the WH. I hope to f'ing god it never happens but it's certainly a double digit possibility. I think TFG's Agnew learning will be to pick the singularly most reprehensible running mate he can find.

It may be hard to imagine someone worse than TFG but they're out there...Roger Stone...Kanye(Ye)...Kid Rock..MTG...Gaetz...lots of options I know...all crazy choices but who among us would fight to impeach TFG if the next batter up was one of them. His base wouldn't give a chit. They'll vote for him even if his running mate is Attila the Hun. But his VP choice becomes his strongest defense to keep the WH for a full term.

If Nixon's VP was Howard Baker (for example) from day 1 instead of Agnew...would Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter for that matter, have a picture hanging in the WH? Hell - we may not even know Reagan beyond his life as a second rate actor and CA governor.

[Iggo]

53. Talking about it as one of the possibilities is not the same as advocating for it.

And everyone here knows that already.

So…

[msfiddlestix]

54. I heard her say this, but it didn't effect me in the same way...

it was a bit eye rolling though, just the same



I did really enjoy her Bag Man podcast series a number of years ago.

[Caliman73]

55. She's a pundit, and one who is steeped in history and political science.

It is not dumb at all to contemplate ideas that have analog but no real precedent.

You could simply have said that you disagree with her assessment of the situation and laid out your reasons for your disagreement, but instead you say that Maddow is not thinking straight?

I got a very different read on the situation and Lawrence O'Donnell responded to the thought proposed scenario in a very well thought out manner telling Maddow why he thought the situation would likely not play out how Agnew's did.

DOJ will not be dropping charges and even if they did, Trump would NEVER endorse any other candidate. He needs the power to himself, he is too narcissistic to support anyone but himself.

[Bongo Prophet]

56. But you've been bragging/admitting for several WEEKS that you ONLY watch Nicolle.

And that was interspersed with your posts complaining about what was said on Lawrence or other shows.
After all the time you spent over many months spreading your opinion that tfg will NEVER get indicted, which is okay to do, okay to have an opinion...but then also berated and insulted others in the process. Again and again.

That last part is pretty much NOT okay, but it does seem in character. Maybe go back to "only watching Nicolle" mode, as you are all over the place.

[chowder66]

58. +1

[chowder66]

59. Yet you keep bringing up Mussolini who wasn't American nor indicted in America using American Laws.

Agnew is the closest example.

[nolabear]

60. Discussing isn't endorsing. We should be able to discuss everything.

Now this doc has been released, just watch her.

[Hekate]

62. Ridiculous. She's asking a question of a guest, yes? She doesn't make suggestions, or demands...

Unlike, for instance, many DUers. She does speak from her historical knowledge, which is deep.