Warren Remarks On Education Are Why People Like Donald Trump Win Elections
Matt VespaMatt Vespa|


Elizabeth Warren is blunt and to the point when it comes to her college debt plan: if you saved money to send your kids to college, you’re out of luck. No really, if you’re financially responsible and started to save for your kids’ education as soon as they were born, her debt forgiveness plan isn’t for you. Warren made this point on CBS This Morning:


Tommy Pigott
@TCPigott
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren stands by her comments that if you saved for your education, too bad, her college debt forgiveness plan is not "for you"

Embedded video
2
9:56 AM - Jan 24, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Tommy Pigott's other Tweets
And people wonder why people like Donald Trump get elected president of the United States. Commentary’s Noah Rothman, also a Hot Air alum, noted that this college debt plan would set the ground for another populist backlash back in June of 2019, where he noted that this plan would be the largest transfer of wealth to wealthy people in our country’s history and leaving those who had just paid off their loans feeling like they’ve been suckered. Oh, and this will do next to nothing to reduce the costs of higher education. It was a rare moment when MSNBC was honest. Oh, and Rothman pretty much torched the core of Lie-a-Watha Liz’s 2020 agenda as well in this media hit (via Free Beacon):



Rothman criticized Warren's universal child-care plan, for example, saying her goal of providing free care to those making 200 percent of the poverty level or capping the charge at 7 percent of a family's come, would require capping costs in the child care industry.

"You do that one of two ways. Regulating the industry or creating some sort of a federal alternative," he said. "I'm not sure if people are going to like dropping their kids off at federal day care."

He also critiqued her plan to cancel 95 percent of student debt, calling it the largest transfer of wealth "to wealthy people" in the country's history. Experts have said her plan will benefit colleges and universities as well, since they would be likely to hike tuition fees.

"And it does nothing to lower the cost of college," Ruhle said.

Oh, and did we forget that she wants to do this and install a Medicare for All system that will destroy 150+ million private health insurance plans; there’s a lot of union households in that pool. So, Warren, and some of her Democratic colleagues, are running on a platform of taking away people’s health care and giving the finger to parents who have saved for their kids’ college educations. Talk about a crackerjack election strategy. The Left never fails in their stupidity.

Katie Pavlich
@KatiePavlich
Schiff is making this argument 24 hours after the FISA court officially stated two of the warrants on Carter Page, pursued and justified by the intelligence community, were bogus. Incredible.

ABC News
@ABC
Rep. Adam Schiff: "If a president can be so easily manipulated to disbelieve his own intelligence agencies, to accept the propaganda of the Kremlin, that is a threat to our national security—and this is just what has happened here." https://abcn.ws/3aESS5N

Go look in the mirror

Schiff ain't got 67 votes

Funny, you don't have citation to disprove it.

who paid for the false dossier?

trump defence team blew Dem case up BOOM


The Best Thing To Come Out Of The Impeachment Trial (So Far)
Derek Hunter



If you pour water up the nose of a terrorist, Democrats everywhere will condemn you as a torturer, but if you ramble on for days, repeating yourself like a jackhammer to convince people your lies are the truth, those same people will line up to shine your shoes. That was the story of the “opening statement” from the team of Democrats in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump this week.

Adam Schiff and his merry band of impeachment managers gave it the old college try in a very long, repetitive, and boring opening statement in the next step of their party’s 2020 election strategy. If you weren’t a member of the Democratic Party or their media, you likely didn’t watch much, if any. I didn’t watch a lot of it, and neither, it seems, did the senators of both parties required to do so.

What I did see, in between the drooling masquerading as analysis and refractory periods for “pundits” scrambling to remember their rehearsed talking points about the “need for witnesses,” was unconvincing.

Schiff has a public history of lying. Not getting things wrong, but knowingly speaking untruths. He’s either hiding proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, even still, or he was lying when he repeatedly said it. He was either lying when he issued an official report declaring no abuse of the FISA process against people involved with the Trump campaign or…actually, there is no “or” here. The Inspector General, and now even the FISA Court, admitted as much, and they did so with all the same evidence Schiff insisted showed the exact opposite. To paraphrase Schiff’s own words, if that’s not a lie, nothing is.


None of this, however, has hampered the affection for Adam Schiff from the people whose job it’s supposed to be to seek and report the truth to the American people. The Democratic Party’s media has a willingness to ignore his lies that rivals any alcoholic’s refusal to admit they have a drinking problem. They fact-check the number of days the House of Representatives held onto the articles of impeachment like their lives depend on it (28 vs 33, who cares?), but remain loyal to someone who regularly uses them to gaslight their audiences and torch their credibility. Charles Manson didn’t enjoy that level of loyalty from the people who killed for him.

Liberal pundits like “CNN Chief Legal Analyst” Jeff Toobin were “dazzled.” An endless string of former Clinton and Obama administration officials (who are mostly introduced with their former titles, not the party affiliation that got them those titles, curiously) uniformly praised their fellow Democrats in what appeared to be a contest to sound closest to a 13-year-old girl in the first row of a Beatles concert in 1964. It was embarrassing to watch.

Then there are the “Cable News Conservatives.” These made-for-TV Republicans like Jennifer Rubin and Matt Lewis serve as props to allow MSNBC and CNN to claim balance, like when “feminist lawyer” Lisa Bloom signed on to represent Harvey Weinstein as cover against his actions. You can’t blame Weinstein for hiring her, it was smart PR. The problem was taking the job exposed her as a fraud and a hypocrite.


The pretzel Bloom had to twist herself into in order to justify her actions was a position she couldn’t sustain. Cable news conservatives have no such problem. All they have to do is be willing to be identified as the “conservative” on a multiple-person panel. They don’t have to say anything conservative, so beyond the label they don’t even have to fake it. The things they say won’t face challenge because, well, they say the same things the liberals do, just with a fake “disappointed to have to say it” subtext. They are testaments to how far people can get if their only goal is to get far and you don’t care how you do it.

While you can look at these groups of people and understand their motivations for how they are and how they’ve reacted this week, you would be hard-pressed to spot the difference between what those paid to play those roles and others whose role is to play objective reporter say. They helped frame the discussions by focusing on some things and not others, and always on the left.


Schiff repeatedly quoted Trump saying Article II of the Constitution allows him to “do whatever I want.” He did this, with no context, to give the impression that the President thinks he can run wild over government. But context matters. Trump was explicitly talking about his ability to fire Robert Mueller, which he could have (but he didn’t). Out-of-context and put in a different framing, it sounds bad. In context, it makes perfect sense. The job of a journalist is supposed to be to give the framing Schiff didn’t, yet none did.


Journalists, cable news personalities, and the executives who employ them seem to be betting that audiences and some semblance of credibility will return to them if they can simply outlast the Trump presidency. It won’t. They’ve shown us who they all are, even people only barely paying attention aren’t going to forget that. And all this is before the President’s team has even stepped up to the plate.

The total exposure and destruction of what passes for journalism will be the among the greatest accomplishments of the Trump presidency, whether it goes a second term, ends in a year, or even tomorrow. When the autopsy is eventually done, they will find journalism’s coffin was nailed shut from the inside.

You may want to watch Ted Cruz new podcast


Rated #1

Ted Cruz? Oh ya that is the guy whose wife Trump called ugly and now Ted is Trumps waterboy.

Laurence Tribe (Harvard law professor)

Even if an unremoved Trump is defeated this Nov 4 so overwhelmingly that he doesn’t even try to hang onto power beyond next January 20, imagine the havoc this vengeful man could wreak in the intervening 77 days, pardoning his loyal henchmen and attacking political adversaries

Joyce Karam @Joyce_Karam

BREAKING: Rocket Attack on US Embassy in #Iraq

• Katyusha hit Emb. in Baghdad
• 3 rockets inside Embassy (AFP)
• One hit Emb. dining hall (@GebeilyM)
• No deaths, but injuries unclear (BBC)
• Iraq Gov, PM condemn
• First Direct hit at embassy, others missed

So That's Why Schiff Won't Release the Transcript of the 18th Witness
Bronson Stocking|Posted: Jan 26, 2020 4:13 PM


While presenting the Democrats' case for impeachment on the Senate floor, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) kept referencing 17 witnesses who testified during the House impeachment inquiry. But there were 18 of them. Schiff and the Democrats are refusing to release the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, and according to Republicans who were present during Atkinson's closed-door testimony, the reason the transcript hasn't been released is because it proves both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff did not tell the truth about their contact with each other.

Fox News' Maria Bartiromo interviewed Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) on "Sunday Morning Futures" about the 18th transcript the Democrats are refusing to release. Rep. Ratcliffe was there for Inspector General Michael Atkinson's testimony and says the transcript is damaging to Chairman Adam Schiff and the whistleblower.

"The House managers kept putting up charts talking about the 17 witnesses," Ratcliffe began. "But there were 18 ... I was there. It's the one transcript out of 18 that hasn't been released. It's a 179-page transcript ... It's the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don't know and what's in that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn't truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff. This whole thing started, Maria, when the whistleblower filed a complaint with the inspector general under penalty of perjury that wasn't true and correct, made representations in writing and verbally that weren't true and correct. And when we found that out and tried to get into the details of that, Adam Schiff, who was in charge of this investigation, shut it down, and now he's trying to bury that transcript."

Bartiromo noted that it wasn't the first time Chairman Adam Schiff has withheld exculpatory evidence. Despite looking at the same evidence as Chairman Schiff, Rep. Ratcliffe and former Rep. Trey Gowdy both saw abuses in the FISA warrant process used against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, something that has since been confirmed by Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation. At the time, Adam Schiff denied any abuses in the FISA process and accused Republicans and the president of lying.

"That's the very same person who is now out there spinning this Ukraine hoax in his latest impeachment effort," Rep. Ratcliffe continued. The congressman said he expects the president to be acquitted "by the end of this week."

The Democrats keep insisting on new witnesses. How about we hear from the old one first?