Rachel covered only half of the Newsweek story.

[Ilsa]

She talked about whether the trump organization would truly be blind if his kids ran it. She didn't mention the conflicts of interest with our national security, national foreign interests, etc., and that there could be triangulated conflicts of interests between the US with multiple other countries on a single issue.

I'm disappointed.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. She knows who writes her checks.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. The same people who write Joy Reid's checks....

....yet she avoids going under the bus....for now.

[PoiBoy]

12. +7,000,000...

n/t

[Island Blue]

2. I believe that Chris did earlier. n/t

[wncHillsupport]

3. I can't believe

I am eager for Lawrence. I have never really liked him and his ego. But the last few nights have been rather amazing.
He may cover the 'rest of the story.'
I don't know if Rachel shies away from stories so can't comment on that. I do know she had a full show of a variety of issues. She did the Hillary health thing well, I thought. Had a sensible MD on.

[Ilsa]

5. Yeah, she covered a variety of things, but I thought

The health segment dragged on too long.

[asiliveandbreathe]

4. I am hoping once she has all her info

she will create a diagram - that is the only way I think people will understand the magnitude of drumps globe trotting..

A visual is always part of the learnings process.....

I find it chilling -

[eleny]

6. I watched and she did talk about it

It was in the context of his kids being in charge and T's national decisions could be compromised by what's good for the bottom line of his business interests. That's the jist I got. She scoffed at the whole blind trust thing and how unclear he was about that when he was asked in a primary debate.

But to me it felt like she spent more time on the medical issue. I would rather she cover the Newsweek story in more depth. She synthesized it down.

I did like how she handled T's visit to Flint, MI, though. She showed T being halted in mid speech at the church. I liked seeing that about 3x. It showed his true intentions for going there. Blatant. And the pastor wasn't having any of it.

[Ilsa]

9. Yes, I heard her say his decisions could be compromised by what's

Best for his business, but she didn't really state the alternative being national security. This is a key phrase, even a trigger issue for security-minded voters. I thought it deserved further clarification, not about the cost to his business, but how far trump would go in trading off our national security.

[SunSeeker]

7. Yes, that was a rather skimpy discussion.

[librechik]

10. sadly, I no longer trust Rachel as a source.

There are reasons, but I can't say them here. She is no longer someone I can trust. (weeping)

Why can't I say them here?

[emulatorloo]

11. "I can't say them here"

Melodrama much? Skinner gonna behead you or what?

You can say whatever you want to say about maddow. But don't surprised if you get pushback from folk that disagree with you.

In the meantime understand that admins aren't persecuting you and you aren't a 'victim' of anything but your own melodramatic hyperbole

[greyl]

13. Are your reasons being audited? nt

[emulatorloo]

14. Will be sent to a FEMA re-education camp should she enumerate her reasons on DU

No lie, Skinner threatened my family when I suggested Lawrence was long-winded!