I respect Glenn Greenwald and I agree Maddow should, tonight on her show, clarify her words that he feels are suggestive of a substantive link between his publication and the "leaked" document. But that issue was not the central point of her story. I see nothing wrong with the rest of the segment, and her responses…

Maddow did in fact explain why asking a forensics specialist (or any third party) to vet it was not really an option in this case, for both ethical and legal reasons. Watch the first five minutes of the segment again.

There was no special counsel for Benghazi. Most Republicans knew deep down they were making a meal of very thin gruel on that issue. A sharp outside lawyer with bipartisan cred looking into it was the last thing the party leadership wanted.

That's exactly what Rachel did! (And what CBS should have.)

I've always suspected Karl Rove was behind the fake documents fed to Dan Rather, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if this one has Bannon's fingerprints on it somewhere.

If a guy openly says he is going to kill someone and that person subsequently gets murdered, it's true you don't automatically have a case, but it's also true that the police will very likely haul that guy downtown and ask him some very pointed questions under very hot lights. Trump has no grounds for complaint that…