#CNNisGarbage and actively trying to sink Bernie, while Liz the Consumer Protector is really The House Flipper who's getting more desperately vicious in tandem with CNN
Just a few things I'm going to lay here for the community.
Her true self is coming to the fore. And it's nasty, desperate and pathetic. Fortitude and character are put to the test during the more trying times of a campaign and she's failing spectacularly. She's not our ally. As someone at Chapo put it, "she went from overenthusiastic librarian to vicious middle manager asking underlings to come into her office real quick."
And while I don't have any hard proof about CNN actively colluding it can be inferred that this very well could be the big attempt (or one of more to come) by the Consortium of Power Against Bernie (which includes both parties' leaders, almost all of the MSM, Wall St and corporate America) as a last ditch attempt to defame him just before he walks away with Iowa and then the nomination.
Phillip asked him to clarify: He never said it? “That is correct,” Sanders said. Phillip turned to Warren and deadpanned: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
That “when” was as transparent a media “fuck you” as we’ve seen in a presidential debate. It evoked memories of another infamous CNN ambush, when Bernard Shaw in 1988 crotch-kicked Mike Dukakis with a question about whether he’d favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife, Kitty.
This time, the whole network tossed the mud. Over a 24-hour period before, during, and after the debate, CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging.
The cycle began with a “bombshell” exposé by CNN reporter MJ Lee. Released on the eve of the debate, Lee reported Warren’s claim that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win in a December 2018 meeting.
Lee treated the story as fact, using constructions such as, “Sanders responded that he did not think a woman could win,” and “the revelation that Sanders expressed skepticism that Warren could win.”
Lee said “the conversation” opened a window into “the role of sexism and gender inequality in politics”: The conversation also illustrates the skepticism among not only American voters but also senior Democratic officials that the country is ready to elect a woman as president …
Although Lee said she based the story on “the accounts of four people,” they were “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter,” and “two people familiar with the meeting.” There were only two people in the room, Sanders and Warren. Lee’s “four people” actually relied on just one source, Warren.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same construction that’s driven countless other shaky stories in the past, from WMD reports to Russiagate speculations. An unconfirmable hearsay story is conveyed by one source, who gives the reporter the numbers of two or three other people in the office who’ve heard the same tale from the same place. Voilà: A one-source pony is now factual “according to several people familiar with the matter.”
The audio from the moment where Elizabeth Warren refused to shake Bernie Sanders' hand has been released.
— BERNforBernie2020 RegisterToVote (@BernForBernie20) January 16, 2020
Then there's this I found from a Chapo commenter:
Elizabeth Warren, who has railed against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.
A Herald review has found that the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate rapidly bought and sold homes herself, loaned money at high interest rates to relatives and purchased foreclosed properties at bargain prices.
Land records from Warren’s native Oklahoma City show the Harvard professor was active in the often topsy-turvy real estate market in the 1990s, including:
• Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months.
• Buying a house at 200 NW 16th St. for $30,000 in August 1993, then flipping it for $145,000 — a 383 percent gain after just five months.
• Lending one of her brothers money at 9.5 percent interest to buy a home at 1425 Classen Drive for $35,000 in August 2000. He sold the place three months later for $38,500 — a 10 percent gain in 75 days.
• Providing her brother with financing to buy a $25,000 house at 4301 NW 16th St. in 1994. He sold the property four years later for $42,000, a 68 percent increase.
• Giving her sister-in-law a mortgage in 1996 to buy a $31,000 home at 2621 NW 13th St. Three years later, the sister-in-law sold the place for $45,000 — a 45 percent boost in three years.
• Providing her brother with a loan in 1997 to buy 901 NW 22nd St. for $90,000. He sold it some two years later for $106,000 — an 18 percent increase.
• Giving her brother a mortgage to buy 3836 NW 12th St. in 1997 for $26,000. Nine years later, he unloaded the home for $45,000 — a 73 percent jump.
Herald columnist Howie Carr reported yesterday that Warren and her relatives also profited from two additional Oklahoma City foreclosures — in both cases showing triple-digit percentage gains.
Warren’s campaign issued a statement last night: “Elizabeth and (her husband) Bruce are fortunate to be in a position where they can help their family. They have been able to help relatives buy their homes and her nephew — a contractor — fix up houses.”
However, Warren and her family’s private investments don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.
“We are in the midst of one of the greatest economic crises in our country’s history — a crisis that began one lousy mortgage at a time,” the Democrat wrote on her campaign website, which also decries “a deregulated credit industry (that) squeezed families harder, hawking dangerous mortgages.”
But when I say there is reason not to trust that Warren always tells the truth, I mean this because she does not always tell the truth. I have documented these at length in a video and in previous articles for this website. Many of them are small, but they are also shameless and show a willingness to bend the truth for political convenience. They include:
Saying she opposed fancy wine fundraisers even though she held them herself.
Raising money using exactly the methods she now denounces as corrupting, and falsely claiming her presidential campaign was “100% grassroots funded” when it carried over millions from a Senate campaign funded by the wealthy.
Claiming her father was a janitor when her brother insists he wasn’t.
Pretending to have been representing the interests of consumers when she was in fact working for corporations who were contesting the legal claims of retired coal miners, women sickened by faulty breast implants, rural cooperatives, and dead NASCAR drivers. (The New York Times and Washington Post both investigated her claims and documented ways in which her campaign had manipulated the truth.)
Claiming for years on government forms that her race was “American Indian”.
When a mother accused her of having sent her children to private schools, insisting her children “went to public schools” when one of them actually did go to private school.
Claiming to support Medicare For All but then, when criticized for it, backing off it completely and promising to pass something else.
Claiming that only billionaires would pay more under her Medicare For All plan, when that wasn’t true.
Allowing Harvard Law School to claim her as its first “woman of color”
Claiming that a DNA test supported the contention that she was an American Indian, then deleting the evidence she had done this.
Claiming to have been the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey bar, then when asked for evidence, saying that she “was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced.”
Telling a dubious story about her grandparents having to elope because of discrimination.
Saying she was “not political” in her younger years when she was in fact a “diehard conservative” Republican.
Claiming recipes she copied word for word from the New York Times were ancient Cherokee family dishes.
Pretending that she was releasing a health-care plan that did not raise middle class taxes.
Claiming to have “created the intellectual foundation” for Occupy Wall Street.
Criticizing the revolving door between the banking sector and government despite personally putting bankers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And if that's not enough you really have to hear the tone of disgust and disappointment in Michael Moore's voice on his latest podcast: