One of Lawrence O'Donnell's guests mentioned that, too.

She was in a weird and wonderful position. Weird in that she had to throw out the entire show at literally the last instant (how many times has that happened since Trump became president?), wonderful because she was the very first one to be in a position to question Comey minutes after the memos were public.

You could almost hear her staff's yellow highlighters working backstage. I think given the unique opportunity she had, she took the ball and ran with it. And I thought there was a nice mixture of questions about the newly-released memos and topics she had chosen from Comey's testimony and book. It was a very fulsome interview.

I did notice, though, how tired she looked during the long transitional conversation with Lawrence O'Donnell. You could almost hear her mind saying, "Oh, for God's sakes, Larry, shut up! I've got to get some sleep!" (When she said she had been up all night preparing for the interview I thought she was speaking in hyperbole. I guess she was telling the truth.)

Generated more heat than light

Had him relaxed and got some info out of him and it was more of a dialog/discussion which was interresting instead of just questions, answers/non answers.

The person who does the interview really matters.

it.

unlike the others which seem to be more looking for a soundbyte she is really getting into the details. you know she has been following this and as a reporter actually reading and doing the research.

Is someone else saying it was a bad interview? Thanks.

so it probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

i'm watching it now
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Comey looks ten years younger and really happy. I would be very worried if I were Trump or one of his confidants.

saving the integrity of the world" etc............

and "handle" her intellectually, or on the issues. You don't get to e a Rhodes Scholar for nothing.

I like your observation about Comey being an intellectual having met his match. Yes -- I noticed that about him when he was on Colbert, but that was a relaxed setting, and this was not. I wonder if he is used to being the smartest man in the room, as well as the tallest. Rachel on her toes can give anyone a run for their money, and she sure did tonight. It was a pleasure to watch them both.

Maddow reminds me of Hillary. Very detailed and super smart.

They weren't in a debate, so I didn't see it as adversarial, which your post seems to suggest? But it was good, since it was on the fly about the memos.

Stephanopolous' was the best because it was the first, the longest, and the most thorough. The subsequent interviews are shorter, and they try not to cover exactly the same ground, although that can't be avoided.

She was clearly unhappy about the Lynch matter. You are misremembering about the documents, though, I believe. I believe he said the documents were real...but they referenced things that he thought were false..but that had not been verified yet. He didn't assume anything, except that he personally believed the verification process would show that the rumors were false.

So he explained that since all that was out in the open about Lynch, he didn't have her there on the stage with him because he thought it would impact the credibility (although Lynch herself has already recused herself from overseeing the investigation).

I think Comey is holding up well with all these interviews back to back. He must be very tired with the travel and schedule, and all the questions. I don't know how these people hold up to these whirlwind schedules without collapsing. Whatever his faults, he seems to be very honest.

I thought Stephanopolous was best, it was more concise, the pacing was better too.

I couldn't believe her entire prepared interview got chucked out the window as she went on the air. The woman deserves some kind of professional prize for winging it.

And the ones he can answer seem to already have been answered in his book.