Why are Rachels colleagues seemingly ignoring that expose she did on Barr last night?

[sarabelle]

Barr's history that Rachel exposed last night seems mighty important to me. Congress should pay attention and the media should be reporting on his past more than they are.

[malaise]

1. Excellent question - his past deeds should be the lead everywhere

Rec

[PeeJ52]

2. I don't get it either. Everyone is busy hiding Easter eggs is my guess...

to know that Barr misrepresented a "summary" before and may be doing it again baffles me. I read this opinion on CNN.com this morning that hits his wordsmanship pretty well in his first summary and what to watch for in the redacted release this week. Barr was pretty sneaky with that footnote in his letter about "collusion".
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/opinions/mueller-report-legal-definition-coordination-noble/index.html

[UCmeNdc]

3. It seems like the media is intent on ignoring this.

[NewJeffCT]

6. it's a complex issue

so, they're doing their best to bury their hands in the sand until they get their sound bites from Billy Barr

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Actually, they've been reporting on it extensively.

WaPo and other media outlets have had stories since Monday. I think it was overshadowed by coverage of the Notre Dame fire, but the media haven't been ignoring it.

Just a few:


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/barrs-credibility-faces-new-questions-ahead-mueller-reports-release
https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/barrs-playbook-he-misled-congress-when-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/15/precedent-that-raises-questions-about-how-barr-will-redact-mueller-report/?utm_term=.0b885555b2de

[uponit7771]

33. +1

[manor321]

4. Daytime MSNBC is horrible

I only watch the shows at 4PM, 8PM, 9PM and 10PM (and sometimes not those depending on topic). All the others are bad.

[OnDoutside]

5. I brought this up recently too. For the No 1 Cable News Talk Show host, you'd think they would use

more of what she does on her show, but they don't. Even the middle of the night repeats, features Brian Williams TWICE, sandwiching Chris Hayes's show. It just doesn't make sense.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. CNN was hitting it pretty hard last night, and they had the story before she did.

I'd already heard CNN talk about it so when TRMS came on I knew where she was going. So it's getting some coverage. But MSNBC tends to be kind of lame in the morning, so let's see what happens with Nicole Wallace this afternoon.

[riversedge]

26. Thanks for post.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

8. Maybe they are jealous of her.

The others are just talking heads, Rachel is an investigator.

[bullwinkle428]

9. CNN's John Avlon basically stole her act and presented it this morning

like he came up with this research.

I guess I'm okay with it if it reaches more people...

Okay - editing it now, as Velveteen Ocelot mentioned that CNN was reporting on this before Rachel actually did.

[SHRED]

10. This happened years ago

Why are these stories only surfacing now?
Why did we sit through days of the legal experts all telling us of Barr's so-called "integrity" when we first heard about him as a nominee?

Why did we not get the full picture back then?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. It wasn't reported on very much at the time.

I remember the controversy over Noriega but I have absolutely no recollection of any reports relating to Barr's memo about the FBI having authority to capture people in other countries or his testimony about it. In those days there was no C-SPAN or 24-hour cable news, so unless you were a total wonk who read the Federal Register every day you probably wouldn't have heard about it. Also, this all came down at the same time as the big stock market crash, so any news about it would have been overshadowed by that event - which I also remember.

I do agree that this matter should have come up during Barr's confirmation hearing but I don't blame the media for that; it would have been the job of the Senate's staff to have done their research.

[bigbrother05]

16. Just as his memo was an audition for this AG job, that sold him to Poppy

It didn't get that much play then because the evidence came out after Clinton came into office.

Barr was OLC and his summary cover up sold well enough for Poppy to make him the AG. He then did his best to make Iran-Contra disappear.

Wash - Rinse - Repeat

It was no fluke that he was nominated.

[uponit7771]

34. THIS !!!!

[Shanti Mama]

11. Didn't Ari get into it a bit at 6pm?

I can't remember now.

[hlthe2b]

12. There seems to be one hell of a lot of professional jealousy from her colleagues...

I guess they think if they never credit her reporting, she won't continue to get high ratings and accolades...

Joy and Lawrence are clearly exceptions... (and Chris Hayes)

[Hortensis]

13. WaPo covered it 2 days ago. I don't know who did first,

but it's all over the media. Heck, Yahoo News had it 2 days ago. Interestingly, I don't see that NYT has reported it, may be investigating something for their story further.

You know, Rachel has a good research staff, but she reports information; she doesn't make it and she doesn't own it. I saw her last night and appreciated her coverage, but coming on this whiff-of-conspiracism thread is like stumbling onto the dark side compared to her show.

Just saying. Googling first, reading second, then posting works well.

[Hekate]

23. Good Lord, what a thread. Thank you for this, Hortensis. SMH

[uponit7771]

36. I disagree, compared to how the M$M as a whole covered Barr's summary this story is being backpaged

... and it's notable that there's few mentioning it on day time shows.

Disagree

[Hortensis]

41. :) Ok. Disagree all you want.

They all hold many stories until they decide it's time to pull them out. SOP. This is hardly new news, you know. It was a big scandal in 1989, and Rachel will have been holding it since about two hours after Barr's name was first floated in a rumor. Or maybe not that long.

[uponit7771]

43. Barr being a bold faced liar about his summaries is news, it's being backpaged relative to ...

... how they reported his "summary".

There are people who weren't aware in 89 of anything ... relatively speaking there's not as much attention given to Barr's previous lies

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Maybe because there are SO MANY OUTRAGEOUS STORIES to pursue at once ??

If everybody focuses on one or two, a couple dozen slip by without comment.

[Hekate]

24. +1

[Totally Tunsie]

17. What's wrong with ths picture?

?itok=5hizHPeJ

Answer: Barr's nameplate identifies him as being "Honorable".

[magicarpet]

21. Well,.. Dishonorable Fascist Full of Bullshit - william P. barr...

....Was way too accurate and simply would not fit on the name card.

[renate]

18. I've seen stories about it on both CNN and MSNBC

And there’s an article in the Washington Post.

[czarjak]

19. Other than that...

I’ll bet he’s a really nice guy. It’s written all over his face.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. What I want to know is why this wasn't brought up and hammered hard

at Barr's confirmation hearing. It wasn't up to the media to hand the story to the Senate; they have staff and researchers. Did anyone talk about this at all?

[magicarpet]

32. The confirmation process is through the U S Senate...

The Rethugs remain in control of the senate, they hold more vote in the committees, they retain more control over the final votes for any confirmation.

After Beauregard Sessions, then the nightmare of temp. AG Matthew Whitaker I am guessing Demos were happy to see bill barr come along and become AG.

Besides the sitting president does not deserve each/every/all nominees shot down by the other parties when he tries to fill an opening. If Dems do that to trDump they give the Rethugs a green light once they return to power down the road.

All the Rethugs Fascists need is an excuse handed to them on a silver platter so as not to confirm any demo president's nominee to fill a federal job post. Like the bullshit McConnell pulled against the Obama nominee to the Supreme Court - Merrick Garland.

These Rethugs are venomous vipers just looking/waiting to gum up the works to surprise a Demo administration and intentionally make that demo admin. a dysfunctional failure. Obstruction on top of blatantly intentional obscene obstruction like they did to Obama.

They hate Dems, they hate Democracy, and they hate America and they willfully and wantonly commit treason and shit on the US Constitution so as to advance their warped and selfish and greedy political agendas.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. But the Democrats at least had a chance to question him.

I didn't watch the hearing. Did any of the Democrats ask him about this matter? I realize that the GOP controls the Senate and he almost certainly would have been confirmed anyhow, but I'm wondering whether this information came out at all.

[magicarpet]

42. Sorry,.. I was busy during his confirmation,.. I did not see the minute by minute...

... second by second confirmation hearing of billy p. barr. He is a pompous Fascist worm,.. he makes me vomit.

Sorry I cant be more helpful with the details.

[Hekate]

22. Because she scooped them and they have to catch up? Because there's other stuff too?

I think she's the only one whose format allows her type of oh-so-lengthy intro and deep digging. They put her on at 9 pm Eastern.

Rachel is unique. She has a platform. I don't think her work is ignored.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. She didn't scoop them. CNN did a story on it before TRMS came on,

and it was already in the WaPo and elsewhere on Monday, but it probably wasn't really noticed until yesterday because of the Notre Dame fire. Maddow might have done the best job of explaining it, though.

[Hekate]

31. Right. And whatever it was (I was out last night) I don't think there's a plot against Rachel...

...by MSNBC or anyone else.

[jimmil]

27. Probably the same reason the Senate chose to ignore it.... N/T

[BigDemVoter]

28. Most of them would rather print stories about Hillary's goddamned e-mails. . .

[magicarpet]

40. And don't forget about Bill's blow job,...

... then he lied about it,... and shame shame on him - that was down right treasonous.

Oh,.. wait,.. maybe it wasn't treasonous,..
but the Rethugs yap and yap about it constantly and incessantly.

And what about White Water,.. those dirty dirty dogs... yet ken starr found zip,... zero,... zilch, but cost $60 million American tax payer dollars - but no pay dirt was uncovered.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Another "Too Big" of a lie to even consider

[watoos]

35. My question isn't why the M$M isn't covering something anti-Barr,

I know the answer, the M$M is not our friend.

My question is why didn't Democrats bring this up at Barr's confirmation hearing? Is the Senate just for cordial conversation?

Freshmen Democrats in the House would have dug out this dirt.

Anyone see Steny Hoyer?

[marieo1]

38. Barr's history

I watch Rachel every single night she is on. She is excellent and I appreciate the history she tells us about people like this. She is not only interesting she is very informative - Thank You, Rachel. You are the best!! I remember all of this once she has researched and told us again but I would not remember it without Rachel.

[dlk]

39. The Old Boy Network Sticks Together, No Matter What

They fully intend to keep their iron grip on power, consequences be damned.

[lillypaddle]

44. took your question to twitter

msnbc, et al and CNN. I want to know, too.