Mueller: No further indictments

Yep.

Will she have 15 questions or more when Trump is re-elected?

More likely an aneurysm.

That might help the ratings. No doubt Brian Williams will save her, he can do anything, just ask him.

You pretty much just described the DNC and their MSM audience for the last 2 years...

@aaronjmate

'I have one question for @Maddow: how come zero of your "15 Questions" deal directly with Trump colluding with or being compromised by Russia -- you know, the question you've been promoting above all else for 2+ years?'

I see questions #6, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15 as being related to this tweet.

Maybe you should adjust who you listen to, or you know, look at the 15 questions themselves before posting some random's tweets.

I don't think you've ever understood what's gone on the past 2.5 years in MSM.

I don't know how else to get it across to you. So on this we disagree, for now.

Well, like the VAST majority of Americans I do not watch the MSM. Rachel Maddow, who appears to be the target of your angst lately, averages roughly 3 million views a night. There are over 120-130 million people who vote for president and obviously many millions more who don't watch her show and/or don't vote.

Her influence, and that of much of the broadcast news, is pretty small...and from what I've seen of broadcast news, it's mostly used for mockery (from all sides).

I am not talking about the past 2.5 years though, I'm talking about these 15 questions. I posted them, you said that they had nothing to do with collusion. I dispute that. Can you argue just this one topic for a few posts?

Let us not only target Trump but all the conservative republicans who enabled him so they could keep their 'corrupt party in power.

Meadow is female, and possible gay. All the things a good Christian conservative republican hates. I watch 20 minutes of her show. Most everything after is just a repeat of the first 20 min. I watch about the same amount of fox ppropaganda.I read extensively different news sites but stay away from politics on radio because all of them are ultraconservative where I live.

That is what Obama did and I hope they bring the traitor and his attack dogs to justice.

I wouldn't think any of her questions would relate to collusion since her questions are post Mueller's report because they would be pointless, then again she does have Trump Derangement Syndrome. *shrugs*

Do her questions pertain to the case, yes, but that's as far as I'll go re your question of me.

The context from which Aaron has composed his question is the past 2.5 years of her career. You don't care about that era, but you can't discard it if you're going to ask me to justify Aaron's questioning of her 15 questions....because to answer it in the context of today has no connection to his context.

For whatever reason she became the figurehead for the systemic left media Russiagate hysteria. Besides that, scads of social media users picked up on it from one another and spread, so it's far more reaching than the numbers you posted. It doesn't matter how large her audience is or whether you watch her or not, it helped drive division and didn't help America/Russia relations whatsoever. She spewed speculation that Putin was Trump's and Tillerson's puppeteer, that his and the administrations actions were at the behest of Russia. She even went as far out as to speculate about what would happen if Russia shut off our power grid during a polar vortex. She raised all this cold war hysteria out of her mind and irresponsibly duped her viewers. All the while Trump was taking actions around the world that went against Putin's pursuits, she knew all that but again didn't give a ****.

She probably did more to give Trump justification to call news 'fake news' than anyone, and she doesn't even mind. You can actually already buy 'Witch Hunt' tee shirts, mugs etc. on his 2020 re-election web site. Thanks, Rachel!

When you have time....here's a really good vid of Glenn Greenwald explaining exactly where Aaron Mate is coming from. The whole vid is great, has some reasoned views from David Doel too, but you only have to watch a few minutes of it to see the crux of Glenn's message. I post this link in hopes you will understand the larger picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Ys-krJp9w

(I just cherry-picked those from your post and I'm not pretending to "quote" you.)

Maddow is an entertainer. She's angling for market share. That market includes a lot of people who dislike, distrust, or downright hate Trump. I don't doubt her dedication to liberal ideals but she obviously plays to a particular audience. People like to see their beliefs confirmed and their suspicions stoked. ($$$)

I watched a little bit of Greenwald and found fault with his analysis of US-Russian relations. Right off the bat he gave Trump credit for anti-Russian policies pushed through by Congress over his objections. And the only people I ever heard playing up the reports of salacious behavior have been conservative talk radio hosts using them against Trump's critics; I've never read a serious critique of the Trump/Russia relationship which gives those accounts credence or bases conclusions on their veracity. And people seem to ignore that Steele, who had contacts in Russia, merely gathered together a bunch of raw intelligence findings. None of it was proven nor did Steele make that claim.

Naughty boy. I'll keep this between you and I.

I'm happy to oblige your request.

I have to take issue here.

First, though I used to watch Maddow (and others at MSNBC) I should clarify that I have not even turned on my TV for about 3 years. But discounting or minimizing the quality of Maddow's show (or Chris Hayes' show) is a serious mistake. It's true that major TV media figures make a ridiculous and unjustifiable amount of money, we can't take the further step of claiming they are all engaged in activities worthless to citizens. She has a degree in Public Policy from Stanford, and is a Rhodes scholar with a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford. Her pieces are usually highly researched and very careful in the ways that scholars would appreciate. Do she or Chris arrive in front of the camera with personal preferences or biases? Of course. Every human is the same in this. But the differences between her and someone like Hannity or Limbaugh are very, very great.

Brennan is not a politician, he was the head of the CIA, but he now seems to be a mouth piece of the DNC and leftist MSM. Although this isn't that surprising since he worked as the head of Homeland Security and the CIA under Obama. Of course he had to come out on the leftist news channels and back Obama's play against Trump.

For sure...I said she was an "entertainer", not a troll. I'm not a TV viewer either and only know Maddow's work from clips I've seen and from the derision she attracts from the right. I don't think she knowingly makes up stupid lies about "false flag" operations, nor do I believe she actively attempts to manipulate her audience. But I do believe that she's very aware of her audience and knows what they want to hear.

What I think is noteworthy is the pressure she's under to come up with a show. So you had that episode where she had a partial tax return of the MAGAsaurus and tried to make it seem like a significant news event. It wasn't. Or the need to keep a daily running narrative about the Mueller investigation, to the point where people lost their perspective and began thinking of it as a countdown to likely impeachment. Some days there isn't breaking news to report but when the pressure of the news cycle combines with the public appetite the news shows often "go tabloid", satisfying the public lust for scandal.