BACKFIRE Rachel Maddow's guest disagrees with her about Trump's SCOTUS pick

Rachel Maddow’s Plan To Bring On Guest To SLAM Kavanaugh BACKFIRES!

Not very long after President Trump officially announced his SCOTUS selection of Brett Kavanaugh, Rachel Maddow went live and on air to do her usual fake outrage and Tump bashing.

Maddow hoped her guest would agree with her radical left thinking and expected her guest from NPR to slam President Trump’s choice.

Spoiler alert, it didn’t go down as well as she thought it would.

Maddow was left sorely disappointed as her guest called Kavanaugh “a smart choice” who will be “an extremely influential” justice.

Nice try, Maddow!

ALSO SEE: Rachel Maddow, where were your tears when Obama separated families?

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

TRENDING RIGHT NOW:

10 Replies to “Rachel Maddow’s Plan To Bring On Guest To SLAM Kavanaugh BACKFIRES!”

  1. Want to bet the guest appears as a regular on Fox just like Juan Williams after NPR fires her?

  2. It is amazing that Nina Totenberg, as ultraleft a journalist as NPR has, actually has the professionalism to speak the truth. Raises my opinion of her that she could rise to the occasion on a serious issue.

    As a conservative and an economic nationalist, essentially a Classical Liberal in the historical meaning of the term, I see Kavanaugh as being less conservative than I would like, likely to periodically come up with decisions I do not like because of detailed legal reasons, but as someone who over the long haul will serve well in the purpose of returning the Supreme Court and the federal courts away from acting as quasi-legislators making up new laws disguised as opinions and forming essentially a second legislature to the role originally envisioned for the court of being the neutral objective appliers of the Constitution and the laws as is laid out in the actual language of the laws and Constitution at the time the words were written. That is, I am pretty confident he understands that the Constitution is NOT a “Living Document” with no intrinsic meaning but what the judge hallucinates into in based on their own personal philosophy but rather is a “Legal Document” with specific words intended to have specific meaning well defined in the specifics of the words and the accompanying legislative intent evident in the discussion of the document at the time.

  3. Nina “Deathmountain” rocks for legal review and opinions. Followed her for years before I had to drop NPR for going in the tank for Hillary on the server scam. Nina doesn’t deserve the abuse from the scum on this forum. You guys need to stop sitting on cigars and chewing them while waiting for your mom’s to holler “switch!”.

  4. damm kevin , put down the crack pipe and stop watching gross porn ! your cheeze has done slid off the cracker boy ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *