General Discussion

Mister Ed

(6,929 posts)

10. I cast no aspersions on Dr. Maddow or her reporting.

Mon Jun 19, 2023, 02:30 PM

Jun 2023

I do remain skeptical that DOJ's course is influenced by her or her reporting, though. After all, DOJ leaders strive to remain uninfluenced even by their boss, the President of the United States.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rachel Maddow embarrassed the DOJ into investigating Trump [View all] LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 OP

Has Trump ever tried to lambast Rachel? Just curious. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2023 #1

I know up until till last year maybe that he had never once mentioned her Eliot Rosewater Jun 2023 #3

Hope she is in the process to further dismantle his life. LiberalFighter Jun 2023 #37

I can't say I recall Trump ever mentioning Rachel PatSeg Jun 2023 #40

Just like there is not a single known or reported case of him confronting a MALE Eliot Rosewater Jun 2023 #62

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've read about him picking on smaller kids while he was growing up. ShazzieB Jun 2023 #68

Oh yes, I believe that is true PatSeg Jun 2023 #76

Right wingers are definitely aware of Rachel Maddow... Trueblue Texan Jun 2023 #82

I think she scares him. triron Jun 2023 #4

Rachel makes it a point to never mention TFG by name DeeDeeNY Jun 2023 #21

I remember Rachel MOMFUDSKI Jun 2023 #33

What a surprise (NOT). triron Jun 2023 #2

I'm skeptical of the notion that TV pundits have much influence in the DOJ. Mister Ed Jun 2023 #5

Dr Maddow is far from being just a TV pundit. She deeply researches every word she says ... Hekate Jun 2023 #8

I cast no aspersions on Dr. Maddow or her reporting. Mister Ed Jun 2023 #10

I agree.. TY. Cha Jun 2023 #24

Most if not all of the members of the J6 select committee gab13by13 Jun 2023 #26

I'm at a loss to understand what you said. markodochartaigh Jun 2023 #51

It's the ethical standard to which they're supposed to hold themselves.. Mister Ed Jun 2023 #58

Methinks in this case they were striving more to *appear* uninfluenced, which is what led to this JudyM Jun 2023 #69

I agree DLCWIdem Jun 2023 #77

The most qualified of them all Stanford and Oxford malaise Jun 2023 #29

No one connects the dots like Rachel - NO ONE TexasBushwhacker Jun 2023 #57

0.00015% of adults watched her show at her most popular Kaleva Jun 2023 #80

That wasn't my point Hekate Jun 2023 #88

But her very small audience limits her influence Kaleva Jun 2023 #90

indeed Skittles Jun 2023 #43

They don't. There was definitely some in the FBI that were obstructing the investigations Bev54 Jun 2023 #63

Maddow is a national treasure. mzmolly Jun 2023 #6

Word. Permanut Jun 2023 #9

But dammit, she needs to be back on five days a week! calimary Jun 2023 #35

I have zero proof gab13by13 Jun 2023 #45

That would be amazing. mzmolly Jun 2023 #56

I would also feel the same if Lawrence did that. SouthernDem4ever Jun 2023 #65

You are one of the very few who watched her show Kaleva Jun 2023 #81

More likely it was the house investigations.... getagrip_already Jun 2023 #7

Garland appointed Smith to make sure that wnylib Jun 2023 #13

It wasn't garland, it was wray..... getagrip_already Jun 2023 #16

When Garland said he would not be partisan gab13by13 Jun 2023 #28

I really don't believe that Recycle_Guru Jun 2023 #11

It actually bugs the shit out of me when she does it. edisdead Jun 2023 #74

It can be frustrating. rubbersole Jun 2023 #75

When Rachel repeats herself like you describe, often it's because she's trying to fill the time Earth-shine Jun 2023 #89

agreed! hopefully CNN will improve with that head guy out Recycle_Guru Jun 2023 #91

Rachel helped but, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #12

yes a huge part was Cassidy Hutchinson. and then DOJ scrambled TomDaisy Jun 2023 #15

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2023 #14

CIA? getagrip_already Jun 2023 #17

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2023 #19

I didn't see anything in the story that shows DOJ responding because of Maddow's coverage brooklynite Jun 2023 #18

The chain of references and the number of arbitrary conjectures in this article are so full of Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #20

Stick to your guns, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #23

Relax, you don't have to worry about being right so often. Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #25

With this latest proof, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #31

Proof? What proof? Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #52

I'm all in favor of good journalism, it's foundational to our democracy dlk Jun 2023 #22

This article is based on the feelings of one unnamed person Kaleva Jun 2023 #27

You should watch Nicolle's show today, gab13by13 Jun 2023 #48

Like about 95% of adults in this country, I don't watch cable news Kaleva Jun 2023 #72

Maybe. But where is the evidence that they were actually doing something? ecstatic Jun 2023 #49

Seriously? Again? Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #53

That's deflecting. WAPO article is about trump, specifically ecstatic Jun 2023 #54

That was the direct response to the post as you phrased it. Then again... seriously??? Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #59

That's a state indictment. I'm not sure where you're headed ecstatic Jun 2023 #61

My bad, wrong link. Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #66

I'm behind on work but I'll try to read by Friday ecstatic Jun 2023 #67

Yeah, not very convincing imho. progressoid Jun 2023 #78

We look for ways to avoid holding R's accountable....even with evidence LiberalLovinLug Jun 2023 #30

K&R! I remember that and agree Rachel brought this to national attention Rhiannon12866 Jun 2023 #32

Thank goodness for RM. I had better not hear anyone diss her here onetexan Jun 2023 #34

I wonder if Rachel will bring it up tonite? LiberalFighter Jun 2023 #36

FBI refused to investigate Trump for a full year after J-6 Breaking on MSNBC GreenWave Jun 2023 #38

The buck stops with Merrick Garland. gab13by13 Jun 2023 #50

I find the premise here impossible to believe. Yes, Maddow - and other journalists - hammered the Martin68 Jun 2023 #39

"the JOD does not make decisions based on public opinion or one journalist's work" ecstatic Jun 2023 #47

That's a rather simplistic assessment. It never comes down to "one person's" opinion. Martin68 Jun 2023 #93

And just a very tiny percentage of adults watched Maddow's show. Kaleva Jun 2023 #79

I vividly remember her 2016 coverage of "Troopergate" SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2023 #41

Well Rebl2 Jun 2023 #42

Kick dalton99a Jun 2023 #44

So the DOJ was dotting I's and crossing T's ? Emile Jun 2023 #46

AG Garland and the DOJ were using the strategy of let's do it like a mob case" LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #60

I like to think it was..... Hotler Jun 2023 #55

28 months and counting republianmushroom Jun 2023 #64

Is there a link to a free copy of the WP article? Baitball Blogger Jun 2023 #70

How does someone who very few watched humiliate the DOJ? Kaleva Jun 2023 #71

Suddenly, there are so many people of different backgrounds who embarrass DOJ into Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #73

She did NOT. This is HYPE. Note that the year the DOJ acted is not presented even once in this claim ancianita Jun 2023 #83

To say the article doesn't back the headline is an understatement DemBlue76 Jun 2023 #84

Exactly inthewind21 Jun 2023 #86

It would be extremely difficult in an open society with so much real time communications bucolic_frolic Jun 2023 #85

So ejbr Jun 2023 #87

Rachel reports on many people and organizations. How come Garland is the only one who gets Beastly Boy Jun 2023 #92