Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Rep. Jerry Nadler ripped final argument away from ...":
Kayla Gowdy: Dems' 10 biggest lies in Trump's Senate impeachment trial
Americans know the Democrats' plan to impeach President Trump did not begin in September 2019. Rather, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitted herself, it has been going on for over two and a half years.
Unable to wrap their head around the idea that 60 million Americans disagreed with the socialist agenda propagated by the Democratic Party, Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and many others began their plan to impeach President Trump the moment he was elected.
This entire impeachment sham has been a predetermined narrative full of lies and false accusations designed to divide America and harm President Trump.
It's time to correct the record on Congressional Democrats' ten most egregious impeachment lies.
Lie: This impeachment process began after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint through the proper channels within the Office of the Inspector General.
Fact: An article published on Oct 2, 2019, by the New York Times proved Schiff received an early account of the whistleblower's complaint despite his persistent denial. This gave Democrats time to come up with an impeachment plan before any information was released to the public.
Lie: Democrats began the impeachment hearings out of concern for the country and the Constitution.
Fact: Time and time again Democrats have gone on the record proving their motivations for impeachment to be political.
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas: "I'm concerned if we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y.: "[Impeaching Trump] is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome [in 2020]."
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box."
Lie: President Trump during a phone call with Ukranian President Zelensky asked for a personal favor.
Fact: Despite consistent false statements from Democratic Congressmen and members of the media, the released transcript of the call proved President Trump said, "I want you to do us a favor." The "us" refers to America, not his political campaign.
Key Senate Republican comes out against impeachment witnesses, paving way for Trump's acquittalVideo
Lie: President Trump's unprecedented withholding of aid endangered the United States and Ukraine.
Fact: Not only did Ukraine receive its aid on time and in its entirety, but President Trump actually resumed granting foreign aid after President Obama ended the practice.
Lie: President Zelensky felt pressure from President Trump to investigate the Bidens.
Fact: President Zelensky addressed the issue with the American press, stating the call was "normal" and "nobody pushed" him to do anything for the aid.
Lie: House impeachment witnesses are first-hand evidence of a quid pro quo.
Fact: Of the impeachment witnesses brought by House Democrats, Gordon Sondland was the only one who spoke directly with President Trump regarding aid to Ukraine. He was clear the president told him, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."
Lie: The whistleblower is non-partisan and can be completely trusted.
Fact: The Intelligence Inspector General found the whistleblower has "arguable political bias" against Trump and was not a primary source to the conversation, giving him no credible knowledge of the situation.
Lie: There was an urgent need for impeachment.
Fact: After saying for months that impeaching President Trump was an urgent matter, Pelosi refused to send the articles to the Senate, unnecessarily delaying the trial.
It's clear Democrats have one goal with the impeachment proceedings: denying Americans their Constitutionally elected president by overturning the results of the 2016 election. It's a disgrace just how low they are willing to go to belittle President Trump and his supporters. Their deliberate lies must be exposed.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM
Friday, January 31, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Joe Biden opposed additional witnesses during the ....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Joe Biden opposed additional witnesses during the ...":
Trump trolls Democrats with rowdy Des Moines rally
President Trump spoke to Fox News in an exclusive interview Thursday evening from Iowa where he said he'd had a little time to watch the impeachment proceedings despite his lively campaign rally in Des Moines.
"It's very boring to watch, I have to say that. It's very boring. I call it the impeachment hoax," Trump told reporter Peter Doocy. "It should have never taken place."
Trump added that he has "great confidence in Republican Senators and probably some Democrats" that he would be acquited.
"It's a ridiculous, partisan situation…I know they're going to be fair," he said of Republicans.
Asked if he had any concern about being one of just three U.S. presidents to be impeached, Trump maintained he "shouldn't be in this position," claiming that he has done more in his first three years in office than any other president, specifically mentioning tax and regulation cuts, fighting terrorism and rebuilding the military.
The president also dismissed claims that impeachment could stain him in Iowa or in the election. "I'm leading everybody and in Iowa, I'm leading them by a lot – every single Democrat," he told Doocy. "Iowa's doing better than they've ever done and now they're really going to start to do well because of the new trade deals that we have."
"Now the farmers are going to do fantastically well. I say they have to go out and buy bigger tractors and more land," he said.
Trump added that any polls showing Joe Biden beating him in Iowa and "old," adding, "We're beating them all and Joe's going down, I guess Bernie's surging."
Still, he said he didn't know which Democrat would win Iowa.
Trump also disputed claims made by Sanders that he would strip Medicare from participants.
"I'm the one that saved it," Trump said. He added that he hadn't touched Medicare in four years except to make it stronger. "Our country being strong is what's saving Social Security," Trump said, saying Democrats would be the ones to destroy it with their "crazy plans."
"Not only Social Security, they're going destroy health care," he said.
Doocy asked if former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been running negative presidential campaign ads against Trump, gets under his skin.
"Who gets under my skin?" Trump shrugged. "You know how many times I've been asked that question? Like everybody that runs they say, "is it true that he's under your skin?'"
Trump added that Bloomberg's poll numbers are bad despite the amount of money he's spending on ads.
Bloomberg is skipping the early states because of his late entry in the race and is reportedly focusing on the Super Tuesday states.
Asked about coronavirus, a fast-spreading virus that has infected more than 9,000 patients in China and killed more than 200 as of Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is working "very closely" with China and other countries.
"China's not in great shape right now unfortunately but they're working very hard, we'll see what happens," he said, adding they would be making some coronavirus-related announcements within the next 48 hours.
Six patients have been diagnosed in the U.S. so far: two in Illinois, two in California, one in Washington State and one in Arizona.
On a lighter note, Trump said he hoped it would be a "great Super Bowl" on Sunday and he had a feeling who might come out on top, but chose to keep that to himself.
"I better not do that," he laughed.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 31, 2020 at 1:45 AM
Trump trolls Democrats with rowdy Des Moines rally
President Trump spoke to Fox News in an exclusive interview Thursday evening from Iowa where he said he'd had a little time to watch the impeachment proceedings despite his lively campaign rally in Des Moines.
"It's very boring to watch, I have to say that. It's very boring. I call it the impeachment hoax," Trump told reporter Peter Doocy. "It should have never taken place."
Trump added that he has "great confidence in Republican Senators and probably some Democrats" that he would be acquited.
"It's a ridiculous, partisan situation…I know they're going to be fair," he said of Republicans.
Asked if he had any concern about being one of just three U.S. presidents to be impeached, Trump maintained he "shouldn't be in this position," claiming that he has done more in his first three years in office than any other president, specifically mentioning tax and regulation cuts, fighting terrorism and rebuilding the military.
The president also dismissed claims that impeachment could stain him in Iowa or in the election. "I'm leading everybody and in Iowa, I'm leading them by a lot – every single Democrat," he told Doocy. "Iowa's doing better than they've ever done and now they're really going to start to do well because of the new trade deals that we have."
"Now the farmers are going to do fantastically well. I say they have to go out and buy bigger tractors and more land," he said.
Trump added that any polls showing Joe Biden beating him in Iowa and "old," adding, "We're beating them all and Joe's going down, I guess Bernie's surging."
Still, he said he didn't know which Democrat would win Iowa.
Trump also disputed claims made by Sanders that he would strip Medicare from participants.
"I'm the one that saved it," Trump said. He added that he hadn't touched Medicare in four years except to make it stronger. "Our country being strong is what's saving Social Security," Trump said, saying Democrats would be the ones to destroy it with their "crazy plans."
"Not only Social Security, they're going destroy health care," he said.
Doocy asked if former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been running negative presidential campaign ads against Trump, gets under his skin.
"Who gets under my skin?" Trump shrugged. "You know how many times I've been asked that question? Like everybody that runs they say, "is it true that he's under your skin?'"
Trump added that Bloomberg's poll numbers are bad despite the amount of money he's spending on ads.
Bloomberg is skipping the early states because of his late entry in the race and is reportedly focusing on the Super Tuesday states.
Asked about coronavirus, a fast-spreading virus that has infected more than 9,000 patients in China and killed more than 200 as of Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is working "very closely" with China and other countries.
"China's not in great shape right now unfortunately but they're working very hard, we'll see what happens," he said, adding they would be making some coronavirus-related announcements within the next 48 hours.
Six patients have been diagnosed in the U.S. so far: two in Illinois, two in California, one in Washington State and one in Arizona.
On a lighter note, Trump said he hoped it would be a "great Super Bowl" on Sunday and he had a feeling who might come out on top, but chose to keep that to himself.
"I better not do that," he laughed.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 31, 2020 at 1:45 AM
Thursday, January 30, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on UNBELIEVABLE: Chief Justice John Roberts declines ....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "UNBELIEVABLE: Chief Justice John Roberts declines ...":
John Roberts publicly rejects Rand Paul's whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial
Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday publicly refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky during the Senate impeachment trial that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower.
"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted," Roberts said after receiving the question card.
Paul had expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
The development brought Roberts into an unusual position in the trial, where he has served in large part to guide the proceedings, not to decide or make any rulings on how they progress.
But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial on Wednesday, Roberts made clear that he would not read the alleged name of the whistleblower, nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual, the sources said. Roberts, in his role, reads each question submitted by senators.
He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday's proceedings, according to two sources. Paul's question, which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower, ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter.
Paul, for his part, could be seen and overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a break in the proceedings. "If I have to fight for recognition, I will," he was heard telling a Republican staffer.
The dispute created a behind-the-scenes issue that Republican leaders were attempting to resolve, though no solution had been reached by Wednesday evening.
Paul said during a break during Wednesday night's proceedings that "it's still an ongoing process" and the question "may happen tomorrow."
There have been several other whistleblower questions, some that even included identifying information, which Roberts has read. It's the alleged name itself that is his red line, sources said.
The disputed question -- an unprecedented situation -- comes on the first day senators have had a chance to be heard in the impeachment trial by submitting questions to be read aloud by Roberts directed at one or both of the legal teams. While several Republicans have called for the whistleblower's identity to be revealed in the past, Paul's attempted question on the Senate floor marks the most notable escalation to date.
The question falls in line with President Donald Trump's own repeated calls for news organizations to identify the whistleblower.
"There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he's the whistleblower," Trump said in November, referring to reports in conservative media outlets purporting to identify the author. "If he's the whistleblower, he has no credibility. Because he's a Brennan guy, he's a Susan Rice guy, he's an Obama guy. And he hates Trump."
Days after the whistleblower complaint had been released publicly last September, Trump tweeted that he deserved to "meet my accuser."
"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," he said.
Roberts' refusal to read Paul's question also marks a rare moment of meaningful authority as he presides over the trial -- a position that is highly public but has largely seen him recite procedural rules, keep the clock and read aloud vote tallies.
The chief justice has long been known for his extensive preparation and an ability to foresee what's ahead, which some colleagues have likened to three-dimensional chess.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 12:15 PM
John Roberts publicly rejects Rand Paul's whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial
Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday publicly refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky during the Senate impeachment trial that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower.
"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted," Roberts said after receiving the question card.
Paul had expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
The development brought Roberts into an unusual position in the trial, where he has served in large part to guide the proceedings, not to decide or make any rulings on how they progress.
But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial on Wednesday, Roberts made clear that he would not read the alleged name of the whistleblower, nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual, the sources said. Roberts, in his role, reads each question submitted by senators.
He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday's proceedings, according to two sources. Paul's question, which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower, ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter.
Paul, for his part, could be seen and overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a break in the proceedings. "If I have to fight for recognition, I will," he was heard telling a Republican staffer.
The dispute created a behind-the-scenes issue that Republican leaders were attempting to resolve, though no solution had been reached by Wednesday evening.
Paul said during a break during Wednesday night's proceedings that "it's still an ongoing process" and the question "may happen tomorrow."
There have been several other whistleblower questions, some that even included identifying information, which Roberts has read. It's the alleged name itself that is his red line, sources said.
The disputed question -- an unprecedented situation -- comes on the first day senators have had a chance to be heard in the impeachment trial by submitting questions to be read aloud by Roberts directed at one or both of the legal teams. While several Republicans have called for the whistleblower's identity to be revealed in the past, Paul's attempted question on the Senate floor marks the most notable escalation to date.
The question falls in line with President Donald Trump's own repeated calls for news organizations to identify the whistleblower.
"There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he's the whistleblower," Trump said in November, referring to reports in conservative media outlets purporting to identify the author. "If he's the whistleblower, he has no credibility. Because he's a Brennan guy, he's a Susan Rice guy, he's an Obama guy. And he hates Trump."
Days after the whistleblower complaint had been released publicly last September, Trump tweeted that he deserved to "meet my accuser."
"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," he said.
Roberts' refusal to read Paul's question also marks a rare moment of meaningful authority as he presides over the trial -- a position that is highly public but has largely seen him recite procedural rules, keep the clock and read aloud vote tallies.
The chief justice has long been known for his extensive preparation and an ability to foresee what's ahead, which some colleagues have likened to three-dimensional chess.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 12:15 PM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c...":
University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade called Dershowitz's logic "absurd" and said, "If the Senate is to maintain any semblance of a check on presidential abuse, surely it must reject this argument."
Former White House counsel John Dean said that by Dershowitz's logic former President Richard Nixon would not have been subject to impeachment for the Watergate break-in. But Dershowitz, who has argued impeachment requires a criminal act, did say "the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were, in some way, illegal."
"Alan Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon today. All Nixon was doing was obstructing justice and abusing power because he thought he was the best person for the USA to be POTUS," Dean said in a tweet.
Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, also invoked Nixon in a tweet criticizing Dershowitz.
"Richard Nixon once made this argument: 'When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.' He was forced to resign in disgrace. In America, no one is above the law," she said.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., told MSNBC Dershowitz's claim "sounds like something coming out of North Korea, not Pennsylvania Avenue."
"Dear @CongressEthics: Can I have my staff pressure a foreign government to help my re-election campaign because it's in the public interest that I get re-elected? Just kidding," quipped Rep, Ted Lieu, D-Calif. "Unlike @realDonaldTrump & crazy @AlanDersh, I follow federal law."
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., defended Dershowitz and said the "the left," and some members of the news media, "blatantly misconstrue" his argument.
"He's never argued that the POTUS has absolute immunity," Biggs said in a tweet. "He's challenging the amorphous charge of Abuse of Power. Huge difference."
The second of the two days scheduled for questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial opens Thursday afternoon.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:43 AM
University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade called Dershowitz's logic "absurd" and said, "If the Senate is to maintain any semblance of a check on presidential abuse, surely it must reject this argument."
Former White House counsel John Dean said that by Dershowitz's logic former President Richard Nixon would not have been subject to impeachment for the Watergate break-in. But Dershowitz, who has argued impeachment requires a criminal act, did say "the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were, in some way, illegal."
"Alan Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon today. All Nixon was doing was obstructing justice and abusing power because he thought he was the best person for the USA to be POTUS," Dean said in a tweet.
Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, also invoked Nixon in a tweet criticizing Dershowitz.
"Richard Nixon once made this argument: 'When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.' He was forced to resign in disgrace. In America, no one is above the law," she said.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., told MSNBC Dershowitz's claim "sounds like something coming out of North Korea, not Pennsylvania Avenue."
"Dear @CongressEthics: Can I have my staff pressure a foreign government to help my re-election campaign because it's in the public interest that I get re-elected? Just kidding," quipped Rep, Ted Lieu, D-Calif. "Unlike @realDonaldTrump & crazy @AlanDersh, I follow federal law."
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., defended Dershowitz and said the "the left," and some members of the news media, "blatantly misconstrue" his argument.
"He's never argued that the POTUS has absolute immunity," Biggs said in a tweet. "He's challenging the amorphous charge of Abuse of Power. Huge difference."
The second of the two days scheduled for questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial opens Thursday afternoon.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:43 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c...":
Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his re-election
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump's defense team, alarmed Democrats and many legal scholars with his argument in the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial that presidents cannot be removed from office for an action they believe could help get them re-elected.
In response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about whether it mattered if Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo," Dershowitz said that motive was what mattered and that if an act was in the public interest it was not impeachable. And he said it was reasonable for a public official to equate what is in their own political interest with the public good.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," he said. "And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Dershowitz said a quid pro quo that involved an illegal act, or was done for personal financial gain, would be impeachable, however.
Amid a flood of criticism on social media and cable news, the high-profile attorney and law professor said his answer was being "willfully distorted."
"They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest," he said in a tweet.
Trump is facing two articles of impeachment, one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress, stemming for allegations he leveraged military aid to Ukraine in a "quid pro quo" – a Latin phrase for a deal in which something is given and received –with Ukraine for assistance with politically motivated investigations.
Dershowitz went on to say it was "dangerous" to base an impeachment on assumptions about what a president was thinking when he or she made a controversial decision because "everybody has mixed motives."
"A constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he argued. "How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters?"
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said it was a "very odd argument for a criminal defense lawyer to make" because motive plays a role in almost every criminal case.
Schiff said Dershowitz's logic would give a president "carte blanche" to cheat in an election.
"All quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt. And you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which," Schiff said.
On Twitter, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a longtime critic of both Trump and Dershowitz, compared the argument to French King Louis XIV's declaration, "L'état, c'est moi," meaning, "I am the state."
"Accepting this argument would put us on a short path toward dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. It's incompatible with the government of, by, and for the people. It's government by egomania," Tribe said.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:43 AM
Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his re-election
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump's defense team, alarmed Democrats and many legal scholars with his argument in the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial that presidents cannot be removed from office for an action they believe could help get them re-elected.
In response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about whether it mattered if Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo," Dershowitz said that motive was what mattered and that if an act was in the public interest it was not impeachable. And he said it was reasonable for a public official to equate what is in their own political interest with the public good.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," he said. "And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Dershowitz said a quid pro quo that involved an illegal act, or was done for personal financial gain, would be impeachable, however.
Amid a flood of criticism on social media and cable news, the high-profile attorney and law professor said his answer was being "willfully distorted."
"They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest," he said in a tweet.
Trump is facing two articles of impeachment, one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress, stemming for allegations he leveraged military aid to Ukraine in a "quid pro quo" – a Latin phrase for a deal in which something is given and received –with Ukraine for assistance with politically motivated investigations.
Dershowitz went on to say it was "dangerous" to base an impeachment on assumptions about what a president was thinking when he or she made a controversial decision because "everybody has mixed motives."
"A constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he argued. "How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters?"
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said it was a "very odd argument for a criminal defense lawyer to make" because motive plays a role in almost every criminal case.
Schiff said Dershowitz's logic would give a president "carte blanche" to cheat in an election.
"All quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt. And you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which," Schiff said.
On Twitter, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a longtime critic of both Trump and Dershowitz, compared the argument to French King Louis XIV's declaration, "L'état, c'est moi," meaning, "I am the state."
"Accepting this argument would put us on a short path toward dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. It's incompatible with the government of, by, and for the people. It's government by egomania," Tribe said.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:43 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c...":
Instead, the House of Representatives accused President Trump of "abuse of power" because "to obtain an improper personal political benefit" he ignored "national security and other vital national interests."
But by this standard, every President, whether Republican or Democrat, is impeachable. Abuse of power is a cliché accusation that politicians routinely toss at each other.
Here, the alleged abuse of power is that President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate corruption and election meddling as a quid pro quo for timely receiving certain military assistance from the U.S. government. That is why Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Prof. Dershowitz, "As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?"
Of course, it is self-evidently in the public interest for voters to know about corruption and election meddling. But the "personal political benefit" to President Trump under this quid pro quo is that it would reduce voters' support for Democrats if voters saw that Ukraine meddled in the U.S. presidential election to help Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and also if voters saw that Vice President Joe Biden enjoyed a conflict of interest when his son, Hunter Biden, was paid a fortune to sit on the board of a politically-connected Ukrainian energy company while Vice President Biden oversaw Ukraine policy.
Whether there was a quid pro quo or not, elections can remedy or ratify such alleged abuses of power. The decision belongs to voters: not to legislative factions and certainly not to unelected bureaucrats.
To be sure, voters elected both the President and the legislative faction that is trying to remove him.
That is why fidelity to the law matters. The law of high crimes and misdemeanors is the constitutional tiebreaker that resolves this impasse between the duly-elected House of Representatives and the duly-elected President.
And the 2020 election is the tiebreaker that will resolve whether the President and his opponents each remain in office for the following term.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:37 AM
Instead, the House of Representatives accused President Trump of "abuse of power" because "to obtain an improper personal political benefit" he ignored "national security and other vital national interests."
But by this standard, every President, whether Republican or Democrat, is impeachable. Abuse of power is a cliché accusation that politicians routinely toss at each other.
Here, the alleged abuse of power is that President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate corruption and election meddling as a quid pro quo for timely receiving certain military assistance from the U.S. government. That is why Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Prof. Dershowitz, "As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?"
Of course, it is self-evidently in the public interest for voters to know about corruption and election meddling. But the "personal political benefit" to President Trump under this quid pro quo is that it would reduce voters' support for Democrats if voters saw that Ukraine meddled in the U.S. presidential election to help Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and also if voters saw that Vice President Joe Biden enjoyed a conflict of interest when his son, Hunter Biden, was paid a fortune to sit on the board of a politically-connected Ukrainian energy company while Vice President Biden oversaw Ukraine policy.
Whether there was a quid pro quo or not, elections can remedy or ratify such alleged abuses of power. The decision belongs to voters: not to legislative factions and certainly not to unelected bureaucrats.
To be sure, voters elected both the President and the legislative faction that is trying to remove him.
That is why fidelity to the law matters. The law of high crimes and misdemeanors is the constitutional tiebreaker that resolves this impasse between the duly-elected House of Representatives and the duly-elected President.
And the 2020 election is the tiebreaker that will resolve whether the President and his opponents each remain in office for the following term.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:37 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz slammed present-day scholars for c...":
Lew Olowski: Why Trump impeachment attorney Dershowitz is right that re-election serves the public interest
A politician's election represents the public interest for one simple reason: the public elected him.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and one of the attorneys representing President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial.
Prof. Dershowitz's comments triggered instant criticism. But Dershowitz's critics merely revealed their own ignorance about the law, the Constitution, and democracy itself.
"This is what you hear from Stalin," said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. "This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalized, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."
Stalin and Hitler did not believe elections serve the public interest. They murdered their political opponents. Literally—not metaphorically in landslide elections. And genocide—unlike the impeachment articles against President Trump—is a crime.
Criminal behavior is not in the public interest. The public criminalizes it. For example, Joe Lockhart's former boss sexually exploited a 22-year old intern inside the Oval Office. Then he lied about it under oath, committing perjury: a felony crime punishable with years in prison. Consequently, he was impeached. But even under those extreme circumstances, the Senate did not expel President Bill Clinton from the White House.
Perjury, like murder, is a crime of moral turpitude. Criminal statutes generally represent the public interest because these statutes are drafted by legislators whom the public elected. The President, likewise, is elected by the public to implement such legislation and fulfill other executive functions.
Members of Congress and the president each represent their respective voters. And, in a democracy, voters are the ultimate deciders of the public interest. A politician who faithfully serves voters' interests—and wins their election—is serving the public interest.
The limit to this principle is found in criminal statutes and the Constitution. That has been Prof. Dershowitz's argument all along. Prof. Dershowitz has repeatedly emphasized that "abuse of power" is an invalid impeachment article specifically because it is an unlimited accusation. The Constitution's minimum standards for impeaching a president require "high crimes and misdemeanors" such as treason and bribery: not merely the abuse of power.
But neither of the two articles of impeachment against President Trump raises any such criminal accusation. Thus, according to Prof. Dershowitz, these articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid. If legislators want to impeach a president while operating within the boundaries of statutory and Constitutional law, then they must allege and prove criminal misconduct at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:37 AM
Lew Olowski: Why Trump impeachment attorney Dershowitz is right that re-election serves the public interest
A politician's election represents the public interest for one simple reason: the public elected him.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and one of the attorneys representing President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial.
Prof. Dershowitz's comments triggered instant criticism. But Dershowitz's critics merely revealed their own ignorance about the law, the Constitution, and democracy itself.
"This is what you hear from Stalin," said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. "This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalized, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."
Stalin and Hitler did not believe elections serve the public interest. They murdered their political opponents. Literally—not metaphorically in landslide elections. And genocide—unlike the impeachment articles against President Trump—is a crime.
Criminal behavior is not in the public interest. The public criminalizes it. For example, Joe Lockhart's former boss sexually exploited a 22-year old intern inside the Oval Office. Then he lied about it under oath, committing perjury: a felony crime punishable with years in prison. Consequently, he was impeached. But even under those extreme circumstances, the Senate did not expel President Bill Clinton from the White House.
Perjury, like murder, is a crime of moral turpitude. Criminal statutes generally represent the public interest because these statutes are drafted by legislators whom the public elected. The President, likewise, is elected by the public to implement such legislation and fulfill other executive functions.
Members of Congress and the president each represent their respective voters. And, in a democracy, voters are the ultimate deciders of the public interest. A politician who faithfully serves voters' interests—and wins their election—is serving the public interest.
The limit to this principle is found in criminal statutes and the Constitution. That has been Prof. Dershowitz's argument all along. Prof. Dershowitz has repeatedly emphasized that "abuse of power" is an invalid impeachment article specifically because it is an unlimited accusation. The Constitution's minimum standards for impeaching a president require "high crimes and misdemeanors" such as treason and bribery: not merely the abuse of power.
But neither of the two articles of impeachment against President Trump raises any such criminal accusation. Thus, according to Prof. Dershowitz, these articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid. If legislators want to impeach a president while operating within the boundaries of statutory and Constitutional law, then they must allege and prove criminal misconduct at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 30, 2020 at 9:37 AM
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz: Democrats can't change that just ....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz: Democrats can't change that just ...":
Alan Dershowitz: Quid pro quos to help Trump get elected aren't impeachable
A lawyer for President Trump argued Wednesday that if the commander-in-chief had multiple motives for asking Ukraine to probe Joe Biden, it would not matter even if one of them would benefit him politically.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told the Senate during the first day of the question-and-answer phase of Trump's impeachment trial.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest."
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz had asked Trump's lawyers whether quid pro quos were even illegal, and whether they were standard procedure for conducting foreign policy.
Dershowitz replied that if Trump had multiple motives — including one that benefited him politically — it would still be legal.
"Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he added, calling it dangerous to "psychoanalyze" Trump to determine his motives.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) then asked House managers about Dershowitz's arguments that quid pro quos are standard operating procedure in foreign policy.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-NY) said that in every trial, "the question of the defendant's intention or state of mind is always an issue," responding to Dershowitz's argument that Trump should not be psychoanalyzed to determine whether he abused his power.
Schiff also questioned Dershowitz's belief that all quid pro quos were created equal, asserting that that theory would give a president "carte blanche" to act in their personal political interest rather than the national interest.
"The next president of the United States can ask for an investigation of you. They can ask for help in their next election from any foreign power," Schiff said.
Senators began the first of two planned days of posing questions to both Trump's legal team and the House Democrats who have served as prosecutors in the trial on charges of abusing power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate political rival Biden.
The questioning began about 1 p.m. and precedes a vote later in the week on whether to call witnesses as Democrats have sought.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 8:41 PM
Alan Dershowitz: Quid pro quos to help Trump get elected aren't impeachable
A lawyer for President Trump argued Wednesday that if the commander-in-chief had multiple motives for asking Ukraine to probe Joe Biden, it would not matter even if one of them would benefit him politically.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told the Senate during the first day of the question-and-answer phase of Trump's impeachment trial.
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest."
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz had asked Trump's lawyers whether quid pro quos were even illegal, and whether they were standard procedure for conducting foreign policy.
Dershowitz replied that if Trump had multiple motives — including one that benefited him politically — it would still be legal.
"Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached," he added, calling it dangerous to "psychoanalyze" Trump to determine his motives.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) then asked House managers about Dershowitz's arguments that quid pro quos are standard operating procedure in foreign policy.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-NY) said that in every trial, "the question of the defendant's intention or state of mind is always an issue," responding to Dershowitz's argument that Trump should not be psychoanalyzed to determine whether he abused his power.
Schiff also questioned Dershowitz's belief that all quid pro quos were created equal, asserting that that theory would give a president "carte blanche" to act in their personal political interest rather than the national interest.
"The next president of the United States can ask for an investigation of you. They can ask for help in their next election from any foreign power," Schiff said.
Senators began the first of two planned days of posing questions to both Trump's legal team and the House Democrats who have served as prosecutors in the trial on charges of abusing power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate political rival Biden.
The questioning began about 1 p.m. and precedes a vote later in the week on whether to call witnesses as Democrats have sought.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 8:41 PM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Alan Dershowitz: Democrats can't change that just ....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Alan Dershowitz: Democrats can't change that just ...":
Ex-Congresswoman nails Alan Dershowitz for only considering Clinton impeachment and ignoring the Nixon articles
President Donald Trump's lawyer Alan Dershowitz has been criticized for the past few days as he struggled to justify what many consider terrible legal arguments. In an editorial for the Washington Post Wednesday, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) blasted Dershowitz for ignoring the articles in former President Richard Nixon's impeachment.
Holtzman was one of few members of Congress still living who was in the Judiciary Committee when the House began investigating Nixon. She is well acquainted with the law, and even after taking Alan Dershowitz's Harvard Law School class, she still believes he is wrong that an abuse of power is a nothing-burger.
"His assertion flies in the face of the articles of impeachment voted against President Richard M. Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee — of which I was a member — in 1974," she explained. "These articles did not charge Nixon with a crime, a fact Dershowitz willfully ignores. Not one of the three articles adopted by the Judiciary Committee mentioned a criminal statute, charged Nixon with violating any criminal statute or described how his conduct met the standards set forth in any criminal statute."
She wasn't surprised to see Dershowitz trying to ignore the percent set by the Nixon case, because it "demolishes his argument that a president may be impeached only for a criminal act."
ershowitz, she said, simply pretended it didn't exist.
"Even today, the Nixon precedent remains valid and powerful," Holtzman wrote. "The first article of impeachment our committee adopted against Nixon charged him with a variety of acts to "delay, impede and obstruct" the investigation into the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel. This article did not reference the obstruction-of-justice statute or claim that Nixon's actions violated that or any other statute."
She explained that the Judiciary Committee's report doesn't demand proof for criminal acts by the president. It says, "it would be anomalous for the framers . . . to restrict the grounds for impeachment to conduct that was criminal."
But, Dershowitz ignored it.
Holtzman explained that in the Nixon case, impeachment Articles II and III were even more important.
"The second was actually dubbed the 'abuse of power' article by committee members at the time," she explained. "It won the most votes from Republicans on the committee. It, too, did not reference any criminal statute. Instead, it framed Nixon's acts in covering up the break-in as an abuse of power. This article essentially charged Nixon with misusing the powers of his office to hide from law enforcement and Congress the involvement of his campaign and top aides in the Watergate break-in in an effort to win reelection — a matter that was not intended for the benefit of the American people but for Nixon's personal gain."
She said that the coverup did actually work and helped get Nixon reelected in an overwhelming landslide.
In the second article, there was a non-Watergate related piece that involved Nixon's abuse of power: it was about the president trying to get IRS audits of his political rivals. Another was about Nixon authorizing his people to dangle pardons for the Watergate burglars to keep them from talking. These weren't considered crimes, according to the committee, but they were impeachable acts.
Holtzman closed by quoting her committee's 1976 report: "Criminal standards and criminal courts were established to control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct of great public figures."
She told the Senate not to fall into Dershowitz's false arguments.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 8:38 PM
Ex-Congresswoman nails Alan Dershowitz for only considering Clinton impeachment and ignoring the Nixon articles
President Donald Trump's lawyer Alan Dershowitz has been criticized for the past few days as he struggled to justify what many consider terrible legal arguments. In an editorial for the Washington Post Wednesday, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) blasted Dershowitz for ignoring the articles in former President Richard Nixon's impeachment.
Holtzman was one of few members of Congress still living who was in the Judiciary Committee when the House began investigating Nixon. She is well acquainted with the law, and even after taking Alan Dershowitz's Harvard Law School class, she still believes he is wrong that an abuse of power is a nothing-burger.
"His assertion flies in the face of the articles of impeachment voted against President Richard M. Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee — of which I was a member — in 1974," she explained. "These articles did not charge Nixon with a crime, a fact Dershowitz willfully ignores. Not one of the three articles adopted by the Judiciary Committee mentioned a criminal statute, charged Nixon with violating any criminal statute or described how his conduct met the standards set forth in any criminal statute."
She wasn't surprised to see Dershowitz trying to ignore the percent set by the Nixon case, because it "demolishes his argument that a president may be impeached only for a criminal act."
ershowitz, she said, simply pretended it didn't exist.
"Even today, the Nixon precedent remains valid and powerful," Holtzman wrote. "The first article of impeachment our committee adopted against Nixon charged him with a variety of acts to "delay, impede and obstruct" the investigation into the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel. This article did not reference the obstruction-of-justice statute or claim that Nixon's actions violated that or any other statute."
She explained that the Judiciary Committee's report doesn't demand proof for criminal acts by the president. It says, "it would be anomalous for the framers . . . to restrict the grounds for impeachment to conduct that was criminal."
But, Dershowitz ignored it.
Holtzman explained that in the Nixon case, impeachment Articles II and III were even more important.
"The second was actually dubbed the 'abuse of power' article by committee members at the time," she explained. "It won the most votes from Republicans on the committee. It, too, did not reference any criminal statute. Instead, it framed Nixon's acts in covering up the break-in as an abuse of power. This article essentially charged Nixon with misusing the powers of his office to hide from law enforcement and Congress the involvement of his campaign and top aides in the Watergate break-in in an effort to win reelection — a matter that was not intended for the benefit of the American people but for Nixon's personal gain."
She said that the coverup did actually work and helped get Nixon reelected in an overwhelming landslide.
In the second article, there was a non-Watergate related piece that involved Nixon's abuse of power: it was about the president trying to get IRS audits of his political rivals. Another was about Nixon authorizing his people to dangle pardons for the Watergate burglars to keep them from talking. These weren't considered crimes, according to the committee, but they were impeachable acts.
Holtzman closed by quoting her committee's 1976 report: "Criminal standards and criminal courts were established to control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct of great public figures."
She told the Senate not to fall into Dershowitz's false arguments.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 8:38 PM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr...":
In July, Trump criticized the TV host in a series of tweets after Lemon asked a question during a Democratic debate that described Trump as bigoted.
"What do you say to those Trump voters who prioritize the economy over the president's bigotry?" Lemon asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
"CNN's Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television, insinuated last night while asking a debate 'question' that I was a racist, when in fact I am 'the least racist person in the world.' Perhaps someone should explain to Don that he is supposed to be neutral, unbiased & fair,....." he tweeted.
In a follow-up tweet, Trump continued, "....or is he too dumb (stupid} to understand that. No wonder CNN's ratings (MSNBC's also) have gone down the tubes – and will stay there until they bring credibility back to the newsroom. Don't hold your breath!"
In May, Trump mocked CNN's Chris Cuomo for "record low" ratings and labeled Lemon "the dumbest man on television."
"Wow! CNN Ratings are WAY DOWN, record lows. People are getting tired of so many Fake Stories and Anti-Trump lies. Chris Cuomo was rewarded for lowest morning ratings with a prime time spot - which is failing badly and not helping the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon!" Trump tweeted.
And in August 2018, Trump called NBA star LeBron James and Lemon dumb after James criticized the president in an interview with Lemon on CNN.
"Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon," Trump tweeted. "He made Lebron look smart, which isn't easy to do. I like Mike!"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:41 AM
In July, Trump criticized the TV host in a series of tweets after Lemon asked a question during a Democratic debate that described Trump as bigoted.
"What do you say to those Trump voters who prioritize the economy over the president's bigotry?" Lemon asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
"CNN's Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television, insinuated last night while asking a debate 'question' that I was a racist, when in fact I am 'the least racist person in the world.' Perhaps someone should explain to Don that he is supposed to be neutral, unbiased & fair,....." he tweeted.
In a follow-up tweet, Trump continued, "....or is he too dumb (stupid} to understand that. No wonder CNN's ratings (MSNBC's also) have gone down the tubes – and will stay there until they bring credibility back to the newsroom. Don't hold your breath!"
In May, Trump mocked CNN's Chris Cuomo for "record low" ratings and labeled Lemon "the dumbest man on television."
"Wow! CNN Ratings are WAY DOWN, record lows. People are getting tired of so many Fake Stories and Anti-Trump lies. Chris Cuomo was rewarded for lowest morning ratings with a prime time spot - which is failing badly and not helping the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon!" Trump tweeted.
And in August 2018, Trump called NBA star LeBron James and Lemon dumb after James criticized the president in an interview with Lemon on CNN.
"Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon," Trump tweeted. "He made Lebron look smart, which isn't easy to do. I like Mike!"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:41 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr...":
Don Lemon clarifies remarks after President Trump called him the 'dumbest man on television'
Don Lemon is setting the record straight on a CNN clip that angered President Donald Trump.
The clip shows Lemon and two guests weighing in on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NPR host Mary Louise Kelly's Ukraine discussion. The anchor called Pompeo's suggestion that Kelly couldn't find the country on a map a "petty attempt to put her down."
Author Rick Wilson concurred: "He also knows, deep in his heart, that Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter 'U' and a picture of an actual, physical crane," he said. "He knows that this is an administration defined by ignorance of the world. So that's partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience: the credulous boomer rube demo."
Wilson and fellow guest Wajahat Ali, a New York Times and CNN contributor, traded quips in Southern accents, pretending to be Trump supporters slamming "you elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling," Ali joked.
"Your math and your readin'," Wilson added. Lemon laughed and wiped tears from his eyes.
"Sorry, hold on, wait," the host interjected through chuckles. "Give me a second, hold on. That was good, sorry. That was a good one. I needed that."
Trump responded Tuesday to the clip, dubbing Lemon "the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)."
His daughter Ivanka chimed in, slamming the "arrogance, mocking accents and smug ridicule of this nation's 'Real Elites.' "
"You consistently make fun of half the country and then complain that it is divided," she said.
At the start of Tuesday's episode of "CNN Tonight With Don Lemon," the TV anchor clarified that he wasn't mocking Trump's conservative supporters, merely laughing at a joke.
"During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh" he said. "And while in the moment I found that joke humorous, I didn't catch everything that was said. Just to make this perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people."
Lemon added that he doesn't "believe in belittling people, belittling anyone … for who they are, what they believe or where they're from" despite political differences.
"It's personally important for me to address this," Lemon said.
Lemon wasn't the only one who caught flak for the clip.
Ali, who was featured in the video, tweeted Tuesday that his friends were "concerned about my safety" after the president shared the clip.
"I refuse to be intimidated and bullied by bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood, whining about a harmless, silly 30 second clip while endorsing Trump, a cruel vulgarian who debases everyone," he wrote.
Wilson didn't mince words either: He slammed the "fake outrage" surrounding the clip, claiming "the MAGA world wants the freedom to attack, insult, demean, and abuse anyone who doesn't aggressively worship Donald Trump."
"They can't stand anyone who punches back, and hope they can intimidate or shame me," he said.
This isn't the first time the president has referred to Lemon as "the dumbest man on television" or referred to his show's ratings to insult him.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:40 AM
Don Lemon clarifies remarks after President Trump called him the 'dumbest man on television'
Don Lemon is setting the record straight on a CNN clip that angered President Donald Trump.
The clip shows Lemon and two guests weighing in on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NPR host Mary Louise Kelly's Ukraine discussion. The anchor called Pompeo's suggestion that Kelly couldn't find the country on a map a "petty attempt to put her down."
Author Rick Wilson concurred: "He also knows, deep in his heart, that Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter 'U' and a picture of an actual, physical crane," he said. "He knows that this is an administration defined by ignorance of the world. So that's partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience: the credulous boomer rube demo."
Wilson and fellow guest Wajahat Ali, a New York Times and CNN contributor, traded quips in Southern accents, pretending to be Trump supporters slamming "you elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling," Ali joked.
"Your math and your readin'," Wilson added. Lemon laughed and wiped tears from his eyes.
"Sorry, hold on, wait," the host interjected through chuckles. "Give me a second, hold on. That was good, sorry. That was a good one. I needed that."
Trump responded Tuesday to the clip, dubbing Lemon "the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)."
His daughter Ivanka chimed in, slamming the "arrogance, mocking accents and smug ridicule of this nation's 'Real Elites.' "
"You consistently make fun of half the country and then complain that it is divided," she said.
At the start of Tuesday's episode of "CNN Tonight With Don Lemon," the TV anchor clarified that he wasn't mocking Trump's conservative supporters, merely laughing at a joke.
"During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh" he said. "And while in the moment I found that joke humorous, I didn't catch everything that was said. Just to make this perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people."
Lemon added that he doesn't "believe in belittling people, belittling anyone … for who they are, what they believe or where they're from" despite political differences.
"It's personally important for me to address this," Lemon said.
Lemon wasn't the only one who caught flak for the clip.
Ali, who was featured in the video, tweeted Tuesday that his friends were "concerned about my safety" after the president shared the clip.
"I refuse to be intimidated and bullied by bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood, whining about a harmless, silly 30 second clip while endorsing Trump, a cruel vulgarian who debases everyone," he wrote.
Wilson didn't mince words either: He slammed the "fake outrage" surrounding the clip, claiming "the MAGA world wants the freedom to attack, insult, demean, and abuse anyone who doesn't aggressively worship Donald Trump."
"They can't stand anyone who punches back, and hope they can intimidate or shame me," he said.
This isn't the first time the president has referred to Lemon as "the dumbest man on television" or referred to his show's ratings to insult him.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:40 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Don Lemon received intense backlash for mocking Tr...":
CNN's Don Lemon explains handling of segment after Trump criticism
CNN anchor Don Lemon on Tuesday night addressed a segment from the weekend that drew criticism from President Trump in which the host laughed after a guest mocked supporters of the president.
"Ask anyone who knows me," Lemon said at the end of his show Tuesday while addressing the segment. "They'll tell you: I don't believe in belittling people ... for who they are, for what they believe or where they're from."
Lemon said that while he found the "joke" from the guest to be funny at the time, he "didn't catch everything that was said."
"I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people," he concluded.
During a segment on Saturday, Lemon had a panel discussion with GOP strategist Rick Wilson and New York Times columnist and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. Both Wilson and Ali have been staunch critics of Trump during his presidency.
Lemon laughed after Wilson said, "Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter 'U' and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it."
Wilson kept going, calling Trump supporters "the credulous boomer rube demo."
The interaction drew the ire of Trump, who retweeted the segment early Tuesday morning, adding, "Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)."
Others on social media also criticized the segment, including former CNN senior digital producer Steve Krakauer.
"If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I'll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened," he tweeted.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:35 AM
CNN's Don Lemon explains handling of segment after Trump criticism
CNN anchor Don Lemon on Tuesday night addressed a segment from the weekend that drew criticism from President Trump in which the host laughed after a guest mocked supporters of the president.
"Ask anyone who knows me," Lemon said at the end of his show Tuesday while addressing the segment. "They'll tell you: I don't believe in belittling people ... for who they are, for what they believe or where they're from."
Lemon said that while he found the "joke" from the guest to be funny at the time, he "didn't catch everything that was said."
"I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people," he concluded.
During a segment on Saturday, Lemon had a panel discussion with GOP strategist Rick Wilson and New York Times columnist and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. Both Wilson and Ali have been staunch critics of Trump during his presidency.
Lemon laughed after Wilson said, "Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter 'U' and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it."
Wilson kept going, calling Trump supporters "the credulous boomer rube demo."
The interaction drew the ire of Trump, who retweeted the segment early Tuesday morning, adding, "Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)."
Others on social media also criticized the segment, including former CNN senior digital producer Steve Krakauer.
"If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I'll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened," he tweeted.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 29, 2020 at 6:35 AM
Sunday, January 26, 2020
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi".
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi"":
Phim nó truyền tải được nhiều thứ, chứ k phải cái nhìn nhận đơn giản về nội dung hay là do cái cốt truyện - tạo phim mà người ta dẫn dắt mà đánh giá + chê bai 1 góc nhỏ mà ai cũng như ai đều biết cả rồi đấy. Dù cốt chuyện hay nội dung dẫn dắt thiên về 1 hướng nhưng những nhân vật sống trong thế giới đấy chẳng có ai chính chẳng có ai phụ cả, tất cả đều là chính trong thế giới sinh tồn,những nhân vật trong phim ở mọi vùng đất ai cũng giỏi, từ người lính đến người hầu, họ đều làm tốt khả năng cuộc sống và vị trí của mình, người chết oan, người tưởng chừng làm điều vô bổ...Vấn đề ở đây là thế giới kiểu " Người nhìn thấy và không nhìn thấy". Nếu đem so sánh cs của con người trên trái đất này tổng hợp lại mình ở góc độ nào, sự nhìn nhận, quyết định ra sao, sự thực tế nó thế nào, trong phim cũng truyền tải rồi đấy, cái đó dẫn đến cái tư duy tiềm thức hướng đến những thứ chung là đồng cảm. Tôi đang ở đây, nhìn thấy cái thứ bạn k thấy! Nếu để được diễn giải thì tôi còn có thể nói nhiều lắm nhưng ngôn từ và sự diễn đạt của tôi có hạn đối với suy nghĩ k thể nói thêm lại thành dài dòng quá mức sự hiểu.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 27, 2020 at 4:00 AM
Phim nó truyền tải được nhiều thứ, chứ k phải cái nhìn nhận đơn giản về nội dung hay là do cái cốt truyện - tạo phim mà người ta dẫn dắt mà đánh giá + chê bai 1 góc nhỏ mà ai cũng như ai đều biết cả rồi đấy. Dù cốt chuyện hay nội dung dẫn dắt thiên về 1 hướng nhưng những nhân vật sống trong thế giới đấy chẳng có ai chính chẳng có ai phụ cả, tất cả đều là chính trong thế giới sinh tồn,những nhân vật trong phim ở mọi vùng đất ai cũng giỏi, từ người lính đến người hầu, họ đều làm tốt khả năng cuộc sống và vị trí của mình, người chết oan, người tưởng chừng làm điều vô bổ...Vấn đề ở đây là thế giới kiểu " Người nhìn thấy và không nhìn thấy". Nếu đem so sánh cs của con người trên trái đất này tổng hợp lại mình ở góc độ nào, sự nhìn nhận, quyết định ra sao, sự thực tế nó thế nào, trong phim cũng truyền tải rồi đấy, cái đó dẫn đến cái tư duy tiềm thức hướng đến những thứ chung là đồng cảm. Tôi đang ở đây, nhìn thấy cái thứ bạn k thấy! Nếu để được diễn giải thì tôi còn có thể nói nhiều lắm nhưng ngôn từ và sự diễn đạt của tôi có hạn đối với suy nghĩ k thể nói thêm lại thành dài dòng quá mức sự hiểu.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 27, 2020 at 4:00 AM
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi".
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi"":
imdb là của bọn nước ngoài nó hiểu bao nhiêu về văn hóa á đông để thấy được cái hay của bộ phim, tụi tây nó chẳng thích văn hóa á đông trong khi châu á chúng ta lại tiếp thu luôn cả văn hóa của nó như 1 bãi rác của thế giới nên nó đánh giá thấp là đúng rồi
Còn dân trung quốc bây giờ nó giống hàn quốc chỉ mê mấy thằng tóc xanh tóc đỏ, trai không ra trai gái không ra gái, những bộ phim toàn diễn viên gạo cội như triệu văn trác thì còn được bao nhiêu người yêu thích đâu may ra chỉ có những người yêu điện ảnh chân chính mới thích nên nó phải đánh giá thấp thôi
Ngoài ra còn phải kể đến anti fan, bọn gato vào đánh giá nữa nên cái thang điểm đó có ý nghĩa gì, phim nào mình thấy imdb đánh giá thấp thì toàn là phim hay
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:16 PM
imdb là của bọn nước ngoài nó hiểu bao nhiêu về văn hóa á đông để thấy được cái hay của bộ phim, tụi tây nó chẳng thích văn hóa á đông trong khi châu á chúng ta lại tiếp thu luôn cả văn hóa của nó như 1 bãi rác của thế giới nên nó đánh giá thấp là đúng rồi
Còn dân trung quốc bây giờ nó giống hàn quốc chỉ mê mấy thằng tóc xanh tóc đỏ, trai không ra trai gái không ra gái, những bộ phim toàn diễn viên gạo cội như triệu văn trác thì còn được bao nhiêu người yêu thích đâu may ra chỉ có những người yêu điện ảnh chân chính mới thích nên nó phải đánh giá thấp thôi
Ngoài ra còn phải kể đến anti fan, bọn gato vào đánh giá nữa nên cái thang điểm đó có ý nghĩa gì, phim nào mình thấy imdb đánh giá thấp thì toàn là phim hay
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:16 PM
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi".
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi"":
Góc tìm anime
Rất lâu rồi, khoảng 10 năm trước trên kênh LA34 mình có xem 1 bộ anime lẻ rất hay ko nhớ được tên. Film kể về cậu bé về quê chơi, cậu phát hiện bà mình là pháp sư bắt và giữ lũ ngạ quỷ trong những cái hủ. Lúc vô tình cậu làm mở hủ, có một con ngạ quỷ chui ra nhập vô con mèo. Rồi nó ăn hết linh hồn xung quanh (kể cả linh hồn cá voi bạn cậu bé). Sau đó nó tính hại cậu, bà cậu cùng chú chó cưng chạy tới cứu. Ai biết tên giúp mình với. Cám ơn ạ.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:13 PM
Góc tìm anime
Rất lâu rồi, khoảng 10 năm trước trên kênh LA34 mình có xem 1 bộ anime lẻ rất hay ko nhớ được tên. Film kể về cậu bé về quê chơi, cậu phát hiện bà mình là pháp sư bắt và giữ lũ ngạ quỷ trong những cái hủ. Lúc vô tình cậu làm mở hủ, có một con ngạ quỷ chui ra nhập vô con mèo. Rồi nó ăn hết linh hồn xung quanh (kể cả linh hồn cá voi bạn cậu bé). Sau đó nó tính hại cậu, bà cậu cùng chú chó cưng chạy tới cứu. Ai biết tên giúp mình với. Cám ơn ạ.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:13 PM
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi".
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi"":
Tân Khí Tật (chữ Hán: 辛棄疾, 1140-1207), nguyên tự: Thản Phu, sau đổi là: Ấu An, hiệu: Giá Hiên Cư Sĩ; là quan thời Nam Tống, và là nhà làm từ nổi tiếng trong lịch sử văn học Trung Quốc.
Tân Khí Tật là người Tế Nam, tỉnh Sơn Đông. Ông sinh trưởng trong vùng bị quân Kim chiếm đóng; còn khi ấy, triều đình nhà Tống đã phải rời khỏi Trung Nguyên dời xuống miền Nam, và đang bị phái "cầu hòa" khống chế.
Ông nội Tân Khí Tật, mặc dù phải ra nhận một chức quan nhỏ của nhà Kim, nhưng vẫn không quên đất nước. Những khi dạy dỗ, ông thường nhắc nhở cháu về "mối thù không đội trời chung của vua, của cha". Sự giáo dục đó đã ảnh hưởng sâu sắc tới Tân Khí Tật sau này.
Năm 21 tuổi, Tân Khí Tật đã tổ chức được một đội nghĩa quân. Năm năm sau, ông đem đội quân đó tham gia cuộc khởi nghĩa nông dân của Cảnh Kinh. Sau khi nghe ông phân giải, vị thủ lĩnh này định về với triều đình Nam Tống thì bị một thuộc hạ giết chết, lực lượng tan rã. Hay tin, Tân Khí Tật giận lắm, dẫn hơn 50 người đánh vào doanh trại quân Kim, bắt sống tên phản bội dẫn về Kiến Khang (sau này là Nam Kinh) nộp cho Tống Cao Tông (ở ngôi: 1127-1162). Biết ông là người yêu nước nhiệt tình, triều đình Nam Tống bèn bổ ông làm Thiêm phán Giang Âm. Từ đó, Tân Khí Tật rời hẳn miền Bắc, ở lại vùng Giang Nam với mong mỏi thực hiện được lý tưởng khôi phục đất nước của mình.
Những năm đầu, mặc dù chức vụ thấp kém, ông vẫn thường trình bày mưu kế lên triều đình, trong đó nổi bật là bản "Ngự nhung thập luận" (Mười bài bàn về đánh địch); tiếc rằng đều không được dùng. Mãi đến năm thứ 8 đời Tống Hiếu Tông (ở ngôi: 1163-1189), ông mới được tin cậy, nhiều lần được triều đình phái đi giải quyết những vấn đề khó khăn của đất nước. Trong khoảng thời gian đó, ông làm được nhiều việc, đáng chú ý có: khôi phục đất Từ Châu, cứu đói ở Hồ Nam, lập được đội quân Phi Hổ dũng mãnh bố phòng dọc bờ Trường Giang...
Là người miền Bắc xuống phía Nam làm quan, lại thêm bất đồng chính kiến với phe "chủ hòa", nên mấy năm sau Tân Khí Tật bị quan trên bắt bẻ, cách chức (1181). Sau đó, ông sống cuộc đời ẩn dật nơi rừng núi ở Đái Hồ, Biều Tuyền; tuy có hai lần được triệu ra, nhưng không lâu sau lại bị cách chức. Ở đây, ông đã viết nhiều bài từ rất hay về cảnh đẹp thiên nhiên, cảnh sống nông thôn, và về chí khí hùng tráng của mình.
Năm 1204, Tống Ninh Tông (ở ngôi: 1195-1224) cho gọi ông vào triều, cử giữ chức Trấn thủ Kinh Khẩu (nay thuộc Giang Tô). Lúc này, ông rất hăm hở việc dân việc nước, nên đã trình lên nhiều kiến nghị. Song, Tể tướng Hàn Sá Trụ không những không xét kiến nghị của ông mà còn tìm cớ đẩy ông đi xa. Thấy không có ai cùng mưu việc lớn với mình, Tân Khí Tật xin từ chức trở về Duyên Sơn (nay thuộc Giang Tây).
Năm 1207, Tân Khí Tật chết bệnh ở Duyên Sơn, thọ 67 tuổi.
Thơ văn Tân Khí Tật thất lạc gần hết, chỉ còn lại một số lượng các bài từ khá lớn, trong đó có nhiều bài có giá trị.
Cũng như thơ Lục Du, lòng yêu nước bao quát toàn bộ các sáng tác của Tân Khí Tật. "Chống xâm lăng, khôi phục lãnh thổ, rửa nhục nước" là chủ đề xuyên suốt trong tác phẩm của ông, dù đó là lời ca khẳng khái hay là giọng điệu uất ức, xót xa, khi thấy chí lớn không thành. Bên cạnh đó, nhờ sống nhiều năm ở nông thôn sau khi bị cách chức, ông làm được một số bài từ phản ánh và cảm thông cảnh sống chơn chất ấy.
Mặc dù kế thừa phong cách từ "hào phóng" của Tô Thức, song Tân Khí Tật còn mở rộng phạm vi biểu hiện bằng nhiệt tình chính trị nóng bỏng, bằng bản sắc anh hùng sảng khoái, do đó, từ Tân Khí Tật sôi nổi, mãnh liệt hơn.
Từ của Tân Khí Tật có một địa vị đặc biệt trong dòng thơ trữ tình chính trị của văn học Trung Quốc, có ảnh hưởng khá sâu rộng đối với nhiều nhà làm từ cuối Tống đầu Nguyên và các thời đại về sau, song khí phách ở những tác phẩm của họ đã kém xa ông.
Đó là trong lịch sử, còn trong phim thế nào thì tui éo biết vì tui chưa xem phim hjhj.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:08 PM
Tân Khí Tật (chữ Hán: 辛棄疾, 1140-1207), nguyên tự: Thản Phu, sau đổi là: Ấu An, hiệu: Giá Hiên Cư Sĩ; là quan thời Nam Tống, và là nhà làm từ nổi tiếng trong lịch sử văn học Trung Quốc.
Tân Khí Tật là người Tế Nam, tỉnh Sơn Đông. Ông sinh trưởng trong vùng bị quân Kim chiếm đóng; còn khi ấy, triều đình nhà Tống đã phải rời khỏi Trung Nguyên dời xuống miền Nam, và đang bị phái "cầu hòa" khống chế.
Ông nội Tân Khí Tật, mặc dù phải ra nhận một chức quan nhỏ của nhà Kim, nhưng vẫn không quên đất nước. Những khi dạy dỗ, ông thường nhắc nhở cháu về "mối thù không đội trời chung của vua, của cha". Sự giáo dục đó đã ảnh hưởng sâu sắc tới Tân Khí Tật sau này.
Năm 21 tuổi, Tân Khí Tật đã tổ chức được một đội nghĩa quân. Năm năm sau, ông đem đội quân đó tham gia cuộc khởi nghĩa nông dân của Cảnh Kinh. Sau khi nghe ông phân giải, vị thủ lĩnh này định về với triều đình Nam Tống thì bị một thuộc hạ giết chết, lực lượng tan rã. Hay tin, Tân Khí Tật giận lắm, dẫn hơn 50 người đánh vào doanh trại quân Kim, bắt sống tên phản bội dẫn về Kiến Khang (sau này là Nam Kinh) nộp cho Tống Cao Tông (ở ngôi: 1127-1162). Biết ông là người yêu nước nhiệt tình, triều đình Nam Tống bèn bổ ông làm Thiêm phán Giang Âm. Từ đó, Tân Khí Tật rời hẳn miền Bắc, ở lại vùng Giang Nam với mong mỏi thực hiện được lý tưởng khôi phục đất nước của mình.
Những năm đầu, mặc dù chức vụ thấp kém, ông vẫn thường trình bày mưu kế lên triều đình, trong đó nổi bật là bản "Ngự nhung thập luận" (Mười bài bàn về đánh địch); tiếc rằng đều không được dùng. Mãi đến năm thứ 8 đời Tống Hiếu Tông (ở ngôi: 1163-1189), ông mới được tin cậy, nhiều lần được triều đình phái đi giải quyết những vấn đề khó khăn của đất nước. Trong khoảng thời gian đó, ông làm được nhiều việc, đáng chú ý có: khôi phục đất Từ Châu, cứu đói ở Hồ Nam, lập được đội quân Phi Hổ dũng mãnh bố phòng dọc bờ Trường Giang...
Là người miền Bắc xuống phía Nam làm quan, lại thêm bất đồng chính kiến với phe "chủ hòa", nên mấy năm sau Tân Khí Tật bị quan trên bắt bẻ, cách chức (1181). Sau đó, ông sống cuộc đời ẩn dật nơi rừng núi ở Đái Hồ, Biều Tuyền; tuy có hai lần được triệu ra, nhưng không lâu sau lại bị cách chức. Ở đây, ông đã viết nhiều bài từ rất hay về cảnh đẹp thiên nhiên, cảnh sống nông thôn, và về chí khí hùng tráng của mình.
Năm 1204, Tống Ninh Tông (ở ngôi: 1195-1224) cho gọi ông vào triều, cử giữ chức Trấn thủ Kinh Khẩu (nay thuộc Giang Tô). Lúc này, ông rất hăm hở việc dân việc nước, nên đã trình lên nhiều kiến nghị. Song, Tể tướng Hàn Sá Trụ không những không xét kiến nghị của ông mà còn tìm cớ đẩy ông đi xa. Thấy không có ai cùng mưu việc lớn với mình, Tân Khí Tật xin từ chức trở về Duyên Sơn (nay thuộc Giang Tây).
Năm 1207, Tân Khí Tật chết bệnh ở Duyên Sơn, thọ 67 tuổi.
Thơ văn Tân Khí Tật thất lạc gần hết, chỉ còn lại một số lượng các bài từ khá lớn, trong đó có nhiều bài có giá trị.
Cũng như thơ Lục Du, lòng yêu nước bao quát toàn bộ các sáng tác của Tân Khí Tật. "Chống xâm lăng, khôi phục lãnh thổ, rửa nhục nước" là chủ đề xuyên suốt trong tác phẩm của ông, dù đó là lời ca khẳng khái hay là giọng điệu uất ức, xót xa, khi thấy chí lớn không thành. Bên cạnh đó, nhờ sống nhiều năm ở nông thôn sau khi bị cách chức, ông làm được một số bài từ phản ánh và cảm thông cảnh sống chơn chất ấy.
Mặc dù kế thừa phong cách từ "hào phóng" của Tô Thức, song Tân Khí Tật còn mở rộng phạm vi biểu hiện bằng nhiệt tình chính trị nóng bỏng, bằng bản sắc anh hùng sảng khoái, do đó, từ Tân Khí Tật sôi nổi, mãnh liệt hơn.
Từ của Tân Khí Tật có một địa vị đặc biệt trong dòng thơ trữ tình chính trị của văn học Trung Quốc, có ảnh hưởng khá sâu rộng đối với nhiều nhà làm từ cuối Tống đầu Nguyên và các thời đại về sau, song khí phách ở những tác phẩm của họ đã kém xa ông.
Đó là trong lịch sử, còn trong phim thế nào thì tui éo biết vì tui chưa xem phim hjhj.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 22, 2020 at 11:08 PM
Saturday, January 18, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
December: Dishwashers
The President of the United States said this: "Dishwashers -- we did the dishwasher, right? You press it -- remember the dishwasher, you'd press it, boom, there'd be like an explosion, five minutes later you open it up, the steam pours out, the dishes. Now, you press it 12 times. Women tell me. Again, you know, they give you four drops of water. And they're in places where there's so much water, they don't know what to do with it. So we just came out with a reg on dishwashers -- we're going back to you. By the way, by the time they press it 10 times, you spend more on water -- and electric! Don't forget. The whole thing is worse because you're spending all that money on electric. So we're bringing back standards that are great."
Trump's nonsense-rambling about home appliances lends itself to dismissive mockery, but it's worth taking it seriously. This was the President using two not-even-close-to-true premises -- that modern dishwashers require 10 or 12 button-presses to start and that modern dishwashers use more water and electricity than older dishwashers -- to justify a deregulation push that will do damage to the environment.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
December: Dishwashers
The President of the United States said this: "Dishwashers -- we did the dishwasher, right? You press it -- remember the dishwasher, you'd press it, boom, there'd be like an explosion, five minutes later you open it up, the steam pours out, the dishes. Now, you press it 12 times. Women tell me. Again, you know, they give you four drops of water. And they're in places where there's so much water, they don't know what to do with it. So we just came out with a reg on dishwashers -- we're going back to you. By the way, by the time they press it 10 times, you spend more on water -- and electric! Don't forget. The whole thing is worse because you're spending all that money on electric. So we're bringing back standards that are great."
Trump's nonsense-rambling about home appliances lends itself to dismissive mockery, but it's worth taking it seriously. This was the President using two not-even-close-to-true premises -- that modern dishwashers require 10 or 12 button-presses to start and that modern dishwashers use more water and electricity than older dishwashers -- to justify a deregulation push that will do damage to the environment.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
November: Pulling "out" of Syria
Trump has to be egregiously inaccurate to get fact-checked by Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," but his November 22 lie about the troops qualified. When Trump claimed he had "just pulled out of Syria," co-host Brian Kilmeade responded, "You have 600 guys there, right?" (The military had said at the time that perhaps 600 troops would remain in northeast Syria, plus another 100-plus troops in southern Syria.)
What Trump had decided in October, after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was both to withdraw US troops from a Kurdish-held part of Syria that Turkey wanted to invade and to deploy US troops to protect oil fields in eastern Syria. The net result was a decline in the US troop presence in Syria, but -- as Kilmeade of all people noted -- not an actual pullout from the country.
Trump's claim on Fox & Friends was not a one-time slip. In October, when there were still about 1,000 soldiers in Syria, Trump said, "Look, we have no soldiers in Syria. We've won. We've beat ISIS. And we've beat them badly and decisively. We have no soldiers."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
November: Pulling "out" of Syria
Trump has to be egregiously inaccurate to get fact-checked by Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," but his November 22 lie about the troops qualified. When Trump claimed he had "just pulled out of Syria," co-host Brian Kilmeade responded, "You have 600 guys there, right?" (The military had said at the time that perhaps 600 troops would remain in northeast Syria, plus another 100-plus troops in southern Syria.)
What Trump had decided in October, after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was both to withdraw US troops from a Kurdish-held part of Syria that Turkey wanted to invade and to deploy US troops to protect oil fields in eastern Syria. The net result was a decline in the US troop presence in Syria, but -- as Kilmeade of all people noted -- not an actual pullout from the country.
Trump's claim on Fox & Friends was not a one-time slip. In October, when there were still about 1,000 soldiers in Syria, Trump said, "Look, we have no soldiers in Syria. We've won. We've beat ISIS. And we've beat them badly and decisively. We have no soldiers."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
October: Inverting reality on the whistleblower
The Sharpie madness was old news by the end of September. Trump's dealings with Ukraine, and Democrats' related impeachment push, were his most frequent subject of dishonesty in all four weeks of October.
His most frequent individual false claim on Ukraine or impeachment was that the whistleblower who complained about his dealings with Ukraine was highly inaccurate. He said this on 46 separate occasions through December 15.
"They heard a whistleblower who came out with a false story -- you know, people say, 'Oh, it was always fairly close.' It wasn't close at all. What the whistleblower said bore no relationship to what the call was," he said in one representative comment on October 9.
What did the whistleblower get wrong? Trump never explained in detail. He couldn't have: the whistleblower's primary allegations were proven correct, several of them by the rough transcript Trump himself released. But Trump just kept repeating his "false story" mantra over and over -- banking, as usual, on his ability to turn a lie into gospel among his supporters no matter how many times fact-checkers debunked it.
Trump first made a version of this claim at the end of September, but he repeated it on 30 separate occasions in October alone as Democrats moved toward impeachment. That was 17 more times than he uttered any other individual false claim that month.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
October: Inverting reality on the whistleblower
The Sharpie madness was old news by the end of September. Trump's dealings with Ukraine, and Democrats' related impeachment push, were his most frequent subject of dishonesty in all four weeks of October.
His most frequent individual false claim on Ukraine or impeachment was that the whistleblower who complained about his dealings with Ukraine was highly inaccurate. He said this on 46 separate occasions through December 15.
"They heard a whistleblower who came out with a false story -- you know, people say, 'Oh, it was always fairly close.' It wasn't close at all. What the whistleblower said bore no relationship to what the call was," he said in one representative comment on October 9.
What did the whistleblower get wrong? Trump never explained in detail. He couldn't have: the whistleblower's primary allegations were proven correct, several of them by the rough transcript Trump himself released. But Trump just kept repeating his "false story" mantra over and over -- banking, as usual, on his ability to turn a lie into gospel among his supporters no matter how many times fact-checkers debunked it.
Trump first made a version of this claim at the end of September, but he repeated it on 30 separate occasions in October alone as Democrats moved toward impeachment. That was 17 more times than he uttered any other individual false claim that month.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:05 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
September: The Sharpie fiasco
This credibility disaster would have been a one-day story if Trump had just acknowledged that his initial tweet was a mistake -- that, as the National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama tweeted soon afterward, Alabama was not thought to be at greater risk from Hurricane Dorian than initially thought.
Trump preferred to lie than to admit error. His thoroughly deceitful multi-day effort to convince people that he had never been wrong about Alabama culminated in one of the most revealing images of the Trump era: the President of the United States displaying a Sharpie-altered map, which we could all see had been Sharpie-altered, as supposed evidence in his favor.
We counted 12 false claims from Trump on Dorian and Alabama over 11 days. Not including the Sharpie map.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:04 AM
September: The Sharpie fiasco
This credibility disaster would have been a one-day story if Trump had just acknowledged that his initial tweet was a mistake -- that, as the National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama tweeted soon afterward, Alabama was not thought to be at greater risk from Hurricane Dorian than initially thought.
Trump preferred to lie than to admit error. His thoroughly deceitful multi-day effort to convince people that he had never been wrong about Alabama culminated in one of the most revealing images of the Trump era: the President of the United States displaying a Sharpie-altered map, which we could all see had been Sharpie-altered, as supposed evidence in his favor.
We counted 12 false claims from Trump on Dorian and Alabama over 11 days. Not including the Sharpie map.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:04 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
August: A tariff mantra
Between July 8, when we started counting Trump's false claims at CNN, and December 15, the day until which we currently have comprehensive data, Trump's most frequent false claim of any kind was that China is paying the entirety of the cost of his tariffs on imported Chinese products.
"We're not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the 100th time," he told reporters in one typical remark on August 18. "And I understand tariffs very well. Other countries, it may be that if I do things with other countries -- but in the case of China, China is eating the tariffs, at least so far."
His assertion has been contradicted by numerous tariff-paying American companies and by multiple economic studies. But Trump said it on 49 separate occasions over those five months. And he said it 20 times in August alone, more than he did in any other month, as he faced scrutiny over his intensifying trade war.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:04 AM
August: A tariff mantra
Between July 8, when we started counting Trump's false claims at CNN, and December 15, the day until which we currently have comprehensive data, Trump's most frequent false claim of any kind was that China is paying the entirety of the cost of his tariffs on imported Chinese products.
"We're not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the 100th time," he told reporters in one typical remark on August 18. "And I understand tariffs very well. Other countries, it may be that if I do things with other countries -- but in the case of China, China is eating the tariffs, at least so far."
His assertion has been contradicted by numerous tariff-paying American companies and by multiple economic studies. But Trump said it on 49 separate occasions over those five months. And he said it 20 times in August alone, more than he did in any other month, as he faced scrutiny over his intensifying trade war.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:04 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
July: Smearing Rep. Ilhan Omar
There just aren't many lies you can tell about a Muslim politician that are more incendiary than a lie that they'd said al Qaeda makes them proud. But here's what Trump said about Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar at a North Carolina campaign rally on July 17, wrongly describing remarks she had made in a 2013 interview: "Omar laughed that Americans speak of al Qaeda in a menacing tone and remarked that, 'You don't say America with this intensity. You say al Qaeda -- makes you proud. Al Qaeda makes you proud. You don't speak that way about America.'"
Trump continued his smear campaign against the Minnesota congresswoman later the same week, falsely claiming that Omar had used the phrase "evil Jews." In September, he shared a Twitter video that falsely claimed Omar had been dancing in celebration on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:03 AM
July: Smearing Rep. Ilhan Omar
There just aren't many lies you can tell about a Muslim politician that are more incendiary than a lie that they'd said al Qaeda makes them proud. But here's what Trump said about Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar at a North Carolina campaign rally on July 17, wrongly describing remarks she had made in a 2013 interview: "Omar laughed that Americans speak of al Qaeda in a menacing tone and remarked that, 'You don't say America with this intensity. You say al Qaeda -- makes you proud. Al Qaeda makes you proud. You don't speak that way about America.'"
Trump continued his smear campaign against the Minnesota congresswoman later the same week, falsely claiming that Omar had used the phrase "evil Jews." In September, he shared a Twitter video that falsely claimed Omar had been dancing in celebration on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:03 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
June: Remains, no longer returning
Trump had a real diplomatic success to boast about in 2018. North Korea had returned the remains of some of the American soldiers who were killed in the Korean War.
In 2019, as the diplomacy soured, North Korea ceased cooperating. Trump's solution: lie that North Korea was still cooperating, thus giving false hope to hundreds of American families.
"We've had, as you know, the remains of the heroes, our great heroes from many years ago -- that's coming back, and coming back as they find them, as they find the sites and the graves, and they're sending them back," he told reporters on June 25, just five days before he met with dictator Kim Jong Un at the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
We thought at first that it was possible Trump just didn't know what was going on, since the Pentagon had only announced the suspension of the program in May. But, in mid-June, Trump was told by an interviewer that "the remains have stopped coming back."
He responded, "But they will be. Look, we've gotten remains back. That will start up again." He then continued speaking as if it had not stopped at all.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:03 AM
June: Remains, no longer returning
Trump had a real diplomatic success to boast about in 2018. North Korea had returned the remains of some of the American soldiers who were killed in the Korean War.
In 2019, as the diplomacy soured, North Korea ceased cooperating. Trump's solution: lie that North Korea was still cooperating, thus giving false hope to hundreds of American families.
"We've had, as you know, the remains of the heroes, our great heroes from many years ago -- that's coming back, and coming back as they find them, as they find the sites and the graves, and they're sending them back," he told reporters on June 25, just five days before he met with dictator Kim Jong Un at the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
We thought at first that it was possible Trump just didn't know what was going on, since the Pentagon had only announced the suspension of the program in May. But, in mid-June, Trump was told by an interviewer that "the remains have stopped coming back."
He responded, "But they will be. Look, we've gotten remains back. That will start up again." He then continued speaking as if it had not stopped at all.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:03 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
May: Two lies in one
Trump has been lying about Veterans Choice since 2018, falsely claiming he was the one who got it passed. His rendition on May 30, along with a similar claim in March, might have been the most egregious.
"I disagree with John McCain on the way he handled the vets, because I said you got to get Choice. He was never able to get Choice. I got Choice," Trump told reporters.
This was a double lie. In addition to taking his usual unearned credit for a program that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014, Trump used his non-accomplishment as a cudgel against a deceased foe whose accomplishment it really was. McCain, in fact, was a key author of the Choice bill.
What Trump signed in 2018 was the VA MISSION Act, a law that expanded and modified the Choice program. The full name of the VA MISSION Act honors McCain: it is the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
May: Two lies in one
Trump has been lying about Veterans Choice since 2018, falsely claiming he was the one who got it passed. His rendition on May 30, along with a similar claim in March, might have been the most egregious.
"I disagree with John McCain on the way he handled the vets, because I said you got to get Choice. He was never able to get Choice. I got Choice," Trump told reporters.
This was a double lie. In addition to taking his usual unearned credit for a program that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014, Trump used his non-accomplishment as a cudgel against a deceased foe whose accomplishment it really was. McCain, in fact, was a key author of the Choice bill.
What Trump signed in 2018 was the VA MISSION Act, a law that expanded and modified the Choice program. The full name of the VA MISSION Act honors McCain: it is the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
April: "Windmills" and cancer
Trump, who has tilted at windmills for more than a decade, made perhaps his strangest claim on the subject at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser on April 2.
"Wind. If you -- if you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer," he said.
There might indeed be a "they" Trump has heard saying that wind turbines -- which he habitually calls "windmills" -- cause cancer. That should not mean the President should pass on their false claim to the country. But Trump is not only a serial liar but a serial sharer of inaccurate information he has heard from a motley collection of dubious sources -- "many people," "some people," "they" -- and not bothered to verify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
April: "Windmills" and cancer
Trump, who has tilted at windmills for more than a decade, made perhaps his strangest claim on the subject at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser on April 2.
"Wind. If you -- if you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer," he said.
There might indeed be a "they" Trump has heard saying that wind turbines -- which he habitually calls "windmills" -- cause cancer. That should not mean the President should pass on their false claim to the country. But Trump is not only a serial liar but a serial sharer of inaccurate information he has heard from a motley collection of dubious sources -- "many people," "some people," "they" -- and not bothered to verify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
March: Revisionist history on "Russia, if you're listening"
Nearly three years after Trump made his infamous "Russia, if you're listening" campaign request for help obtaining deleted Hillary Clinton emails, he announced a new explanation.
He had been just kidding. The media had failed to report that he had been just kidding.
"Because with the fake news -- if you tell a joke, if you're sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails. Please!'... So everybody is having a good time. I'm laughing, we're all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' ...These people are sick," he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2.
No, Trump didn't make the request before 25,000 people at a rollicking arena event. No, he wasn't laughing at the time.
Trump made his plea at a 2016 press conference, with a straight face. He offered no indication that he was anything less than serious.
This was up-is-down fake history, one of Trump's periodic efforts to rewrite a reality we were all able to witness.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
March: Revisionist history on "Russia, if you're listening"
Nearly three years after Trump made his infamous "Russia, if you're listening" campaign request for help obtaining deleted Hillary Clinton emails, he announced a new explanation.
He had been just kidding. The media had failed to report that he had been just kidding.
"Because with the fake news -- if you tell a joke, if you're sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails. Please!'... So everybody is having a good time. I'm laughing, we're all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' ...These people are sick," he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2.
No, Trump didn't make the request before 25,000 people at a rollicking arena event. No, he wasn't laughing at the time.
Trump made his plea at a 2016 press conference, with a straight face. He offered no indication that he was anything less than serious.
This was up-is-down fake history, one of Trump's periodic efforts to rewrite a reality we were all able to witness.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
February: Imaginary voter fraud
Trump has depicted himself as a crusader against election fraud. What happened in February was telling.
On February 21, North Carolina's elections board ordered a new congressional election in the state's ninth district because of an actual case of apparent election fraud -- allegedly perpetrated by a Republican operative who was indicted the following week. On February 22, Trump was asked for his thoughts and he quickly pivoted to imaginary election fraud in another state.
"Well, I condemn any election fraud," he said. "And when I look at what's happened in California with the votes, when I look at what happened -- as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes..."
Trump's lying is rarely challenged in real time. This time, a reporter did try to object to the fiction about California. Trump responded with a favorite tactic: an aggressive "Excuse me, excuse me" interjection, then more dishonesty.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
February: Imaginary voter fraud
Trump has depicted himself as a crusader against election fraud. What happened in February was telling.
On February 21, North Carolina's elections board ordered a new congressional election in the state's ninth district because of an actual case of apparent election fraud -- allegedly perpetrated by a Republican operative who was indicted the following week. On February 22, Trump was asked for his thoughts and he quickly pivoted to imaginary election fraud in another state.
"Well, I condemn any election fraud," he said. "And when I look at what's happened in California with the votes, when I look at what happened -- as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes..."
Trump's lying is rarely challenged in real time. This time, a reporter did try to object to the fiction about California. Trump responded with a favorite tactic: an aggressive "Excuse me, excuse me" interjection, then more dishonesty.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
January: Duct tape and the border
Trump has long seemed to relish reciting lurid stories about the horrors of illegal immigration. During a barrage of immigration-related false claims in January, as he sought public support for the government shutdown over funding for his border wall, he came up with a vivid new tale about the logistics of human trafficking.
"And they'll have women taped -- their mouths with duct tape, with electrical tape. They tape their face, their hair, their hands behind their back, their legs. They put them in the backseat of cars and vans, and they go -- they don't come in through your port of entry because you'd see them. You couldn't do that," he said during a January 14 speech to the American Farm Bureau Federation. "They come in through our border, where we don't have any barriers or walls."
While it's possible some women are being made to suffer such kidnapping horrors, the policy premise of Trump's "duct tape" novellas -- that trafficking victims are never transported through legal ports of entry, only through the unprotected desert -- is not at all true.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
January: Duct tape and the border
Trump has long seemed to relish reciting lurid stories about the horrors of illegal immigration. During a barrage of immigration-related false claims in January, as he sought public support for the government shutdown over funding for his border wall, he came up with a vivid new tale about the logistics of human trafficking.
"And they'll have women taped -- their mouths with duct tape, with electrical tape. They tape their face, their hair, their hands behind their back, their legs. They put them in the backseat of cars and vans, and they go -- they don't come in through your port of entry because you'd see them. You couldn't do that," he said during a January 14 speech to the American Farm Bureau Federation. "They come in through our border, where we don't have any barriers or walls."
While it's possible some women are being made to suffer such kidnapping horrors, the policy premise of Trump's "duct tape" novellas -- that trafficking victims are never transported through legal ports of entry, only through the unprotected desert -- is not at all true.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
A month-by-month look at Donald Trump's top lies of 2019
defining feature of the Donald Trump presidency is the bombardment of lies -- Trump's unceasing campaign to convince people of things that aren't true.
Trump made more than 2,700 false claims this year. (We're still calculating the final total.) Some of them were innocent slips, some of them little exaggerations. But a large number of them were whoppers: deliberate, significant attempts to deceive and manipulate.
The breadth of the dishonesty was as striking as the frequency. Trump was inaccurate this year about every conceivable topic, from his dealings with Ukraine to the size of his crowds to, literally, the time of day.
He told too many lies for us to confidently pick a single most notable lie of the year. So we've picked our 12 most notable, one for every month. (We're defining notable as some combination of egregious, important and bizarre.)
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:00 AM
A month-by-month look at Donald Trump's top lies of 2019
defining feature of the Donald Trump presidency is the bombardment of lies -- Trump's unceasing campaign to convince people of things that aren't true.
Trump made more than 2,700 false claims this year. (We're still calculating the final total.) Some of them were innocent slips, some of them little exaggerations. But a large number of them were whoppers: deliberate, significant attempts to deceive and manipulate.
The breadth of the dishonesty was as striking as the frequency. Trump was inaccurate this year about every conceivable topic, from his dealings with Ukraine to the size of his crowds to, literally, the time of day.
He told too many lies for us to confidently pick a single most notable lie of the year. So we've picked our 12 most notable, one for every month. (We're defining notable as some combination of egregious, important and bizarre.)
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:00 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju...":
McSally Slams CNN, but Gets Pressed on Fox News
McSally made some impeachment news of her own Thursday when she rejected a question from CNN reporter Manu Raju and called him a "liberal hack." The conservative Arizona senator even tweeted a video of their exchange, in which Raju attempted to ask her in a hallway whether the Senate should consider new evidence in the impeachment trial. The encounter has led to lots of reaction:
Doubling down: Wolf Blitzer of CNN said McSally owed Raju an apology for her "awful" behavior, reports Fox News. But McSally rejected that in an appearance on the Ingraham Angle on Fox. "You know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the capital, they are so biased," she said, per Mediaite. "They are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and asked trapping questions. I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is."
Not answering: Host Laura Ingraham was sympathetic to that point, but she pressed McSally to answer Raju's question. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no?" Ingraham asked. She posed the question multiple times ("Pretty easy question, don't you think, senator?") but McSally would not answer directly. "We are going to get to that," she said. "I'm not going to tell everybody what all my votes are gonna be." Eventually, McSally said that if Democrats were allowed to call witnesses, then Trump's legal team should get to call some of their own, per Business Insider.
From the left: At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent is incredulous at the initial exchange. "Note that it is now seen as 'liberal' to merely ask a Republican senator whether she feels any obligation to consider the full set of facts before exercising her constitutional duty to vote on whether articles of impeachment—passed by the elected representatives in the other chamber of Congress—merit removal," he writes.
From the right: The exchange "reflects three years of mounting frustration with an overtly partisan media, exemplified by CNN, which has dropped any pretense of fairness and become an organ of the Democratic Party," writes David Harsanyi at the New York Post. He complains that "virtually all questions posed by political reporters these days are framed to support the narratives and assumptions of one political party, the Democrats."
Calculated? In a piece headlined "The McSally Maneuver" at the Bulwark, a critical Tim Miller writes that McSally's impeachment options are limited. Sure, she could buck her party and vote to hear new witnesses, he writes. "Alternately, she can refuse to engage this impeachment on the merits, reject all additional information that could embarrass Trump, (and) flip the bird to the 'fake news media.'" He points out that her Senate seat is vulnerable, and Republicans already are fundraising for her off this incident. "So which door did you think she was going to pick?"
Please, CNN: Brad Slager at the conservative RedState mocks CNN's "full meltdown" over the matter. "It is becoming increasingly obvious that the very worst thing that can possibly happen to a contemporary journalist—at least those working for the cable networks—is that someone dares insult their ego." He poses a question of his own to the network: "Is it considered unbecoming by you that Manu Raju's question was essentially a direct talking point of the Democrats this week?"
The race: In November, McSally is facing Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who is the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. He currently has a slim lead in the polls, per Real Clear Politics.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:12 AM
McSally Slams CNN, but Gets Pressed on Fox News
McSally made some impeachment news of her own Thursday when she rejected a question from CNN reporter Manu Raju and called him a "liberal hack." The conservative Arizona senator even tweeted a video of their exchange, in which Raju attempted to ask her in a hallway whether the Senate should consider new evidence in the impeachment trial. The encounter has led to lots of reaction:
Doubling down: Wolf Blitzer of CNN said McSally owed Raju an apology for her "awful" behavior, reports Fox News. But McSally rejected that in an appearance on the Ingraham Angle on Fox. "You know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the capital, they are so biased," she said, per Mediaite. "They are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and asked trapping questions. I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is."
Not answering: Host Laura Ingraham was sympathetic to that point, but she pressed McSally to answer Raju's question. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no?" Ingraham asked. She posed the question multiple times ("Pretty easy question, don't you think, senator?") but McSally would not answer directly. "We are going to get to that," she said. "I'm not going to tell everybody what all my votes are gonna be." Eventually, McSally said that if Democrats were allowed to call witnesses, then Trump's legal team should get to call some of their own, per Business Insider.
From the left: At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent is incredulous at the initial exchange. "Note that it is now seen as 'liberal' to merely ask a Republican senator whether she feels any obligation to consider the full set of facts before exercising her constitutional duty to vote on whether articles of impeachment—passed by the elected representatives in the other chamber of Congress—merit removal," he writes.
From the right: The exchange "reflects three years of mounting frustration with an overtly partisan media, exemplified by CNN, which has dropped any pretense of fairness and become an organ of the Democratic Party," writes David Harsanyi at the New York Post. He complains that "virtually all questions posed by political reporters these days are framed to support the narratives and assumptions of one political party, the Democrats."
Calculated? In a piece headlined "The McSally Maneuver" at the Bulwark, a critical Tim Miller writes that McSally's impeachment options are limited. Sure, she could buck her party and vote to hear new witnesses, he writes. "Alternately, she can refuse to engage this impeachment on the merits, reject all additional information that could embarrass Trump, (and) flip the bird to the 'fake news media.'" He points out that her Senate seat is vulnerable, and Republicans already are fundraising for her off this incident. "So which door did you think she was going to pick?"
Please, CNN: Brad Slager at the conservative RedState mocks CNN's "full meltdown" over the matter. "It is becoming increasingly obvious that the very worst thing that can possibly happen to a contemporary journalist—at least those working for the cable networks—is that someone dares insult their ego." He poses a question of his own to the network: "Is it considered unbecoming by you that Manu Raju's question was essentially a direct talking point of the Democrats this week?"
The race: In November, McSally is facing Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who is the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. He currently has a slim lead in the polls, per Real Clear Politics.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:12 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju...":
FOX NEWS HOST PRESSES GOP SENATOR ON CNN REPORTER'S QUESTION ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES: 'YOU CAN CALL ME A CONSERVATIVE HACK'
Republican Senator Martha McSally, who dubbed a CNN reporter a "liberal hack" over a question about potential witnesses and evidence in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, danced around the question when pressed Thursday evening by Fox News' Laura Ingraham.
Democrats and reporters were quick to criticize McSally, a former Air Force combat fighter pilot who was appointed in December 2018 by Arizona's governor to fill the late John McCain's seat, for labeling CNN's Manu Raju a "liberal hack" on Thursday. He had asked her if newly revealed—and damning—evidence against Trump should be considered during the trial that will begin in earnest on Tuesday.
"Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you," she said. "You're a liberal hack."
Pressed by Ingraham later that night, McSally offered a vague answer. "I want a fair trial," she said.
"You're not gonna play the game with me," the Fox talk show host responded. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no? Why aren't you telling us?"
McSally said it was because the Senate plans to vote Tuesday on a resolution presented by Senate Majority Mitch McConnell that will lay out the rules to govern the trial, which will allow for later consideration of witnesses. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised to force a vote on summoning several witnesses believed to have firsthand knowledge of Trump's Ukraine dealings, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, at the trial's outset on Tuesday.
"We're going to vote on Tuesday to start the trial and let them present the prosecution... We're gonna get to [witnesses]," McSally said, dodging Ingraham's question on how she'll vote. "I'm not going to tell everybody what my vote is going to be."
"Pretty easy question, wouldn't you say, senator?" Ingraham said.
McSally responded: "I think we'll proceed to a final vote, I hope with strong unity, after Phase One is complete."
Like McSally, other Senate Republicans are dismissive of the new evidence involving Trump's dealings with Ukraine, which is at the heart of his impeachment. Specifically, a government watchdog agency has concluded that Trump violated the law by withholding military aid from Ukraine. Also, new evidence from an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, further exposed Trump's efforts to remove a former ambassador and pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
In her Fox interview, McSally doubled down on her criticism of CNN, accusing the network of "cheerleading the Democrats" and saying they "hate the president." She also claimed the network is prejudiced against Republicans.
"As you know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the Capitol, they are so biased, they are so in cahoots with the Democrats. They so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and ask trapping questions," McSally claimed.
"I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is," she continued. "And that's what we see out of the mainstream media—and especially CNN—every single day. Obviously, I'm going to tell the truth. I did it today, and it's laughable how they've responded."
In a statement about McSally's characterization of Raju, CNN said: "It is extremely unbecoming for a U.S. senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job."
The campaigns of Trump and McSally quickly seized on the opportunity to raise money off the attention she received from criticizing a CNN reporter.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:06 AM
FOX NEWS HOST PRESSES GOP SENATOR ON CNN REPORTER'S QUESTION ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES: 'YOU CAN CALL ME A CONSERVATIVE HACK'
Republican Senator Martha McSally, who dubbed a CNN reporter a "liberal hack" over a question about potential witnesses and evidence in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, danced around the question when pressed Thursday evening by Fox News' Laura Ingraham.
Democrats and reporters were quick to criticize McSally, a former Air Force combat fighter pilot who was appointed in December 2018 by Arizona's governor to fill the late John McCain's seat, for labeling CNN's Manu Raju a "liberal hack" on Thursday. He had asked her if newly revealed—and damning—evidence against Trump should be considered during the trial that will begin in earnest on Tuesday.
"Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you," she said. "You're a liberal hack."
Pressed by Ingraham later that night, McSally offered a vague answer. "I want a fair trial," she said.
"You're not gonna play the game with me," the Fox talk show host responded. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no? Why aren't you telling us?"
McSally said it was because the Senate plans to vote Tuesday on a resolution presented by Senate Majority Mitch McConnell that will lay out the rules to govern the trial, which will allow for later consideration of witnesses. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised to force a vote on summoning several witnesses believed to have firsthand knowledge of Trump's Ukraine dealings, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, at the trial's outset on Tuesday.
"We're going to vote on Tuesday to start the trial and let them present the prosecution... We're gonna get to [witnesses]," McSally said, dodging Ingraham's question on how she'll vote. "I'm not going to tell everybody what my vote is going to be."
"Pretty easy question, wouldn't you say, senator?" Ingraham said.
McSally responded: "I think we'll proceed to a final vote, I hope with strong unity, after Phase One is complete."
Like McSally, other Senate Republicans are dismissive of the new evidence involving Trump's dealings with Ukraine, which is at the heart of his impeachment. Specifically, a government watchdog agency has concluded that Trump violated the law by withholding military aid from Ukraine. Also, new evidence from an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, further exposed Trump's efforts to remove a former ambassador and pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
In her Fox interview, McSally doubled down on her criticism of CNN, accusing the network of "cheerleading the Democrats" and saying they "hate the president." She also claimed the network is prejudiced against Republicans.
"As you know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the Capitol, they are so biased, they are so in cahoots with the Democrats. They so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and ask trapping questions," McSally claimed.
"I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is," she continued. "And that's what we see out of the mainstream media—and especially CNN—every single day. Obviously, I'm going to tell the truth. I did it today, and it's laughable how they've responded."
In a statement about McSally's characterization of Raju, CNN said: "It is extremely unbecoming for a U.S. senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job."
The campaigns of Trump and McSally quickly seized on the opportunity to raise money off the attention she received from criticizing a CNN reporter.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:06 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Martha McSally blasts CNN reporter Manu Raju: "I'm....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Martha McSally blasts CNN reporter Manu Raju: "I'm...":
Martha McSally's staggering cynicism
Virtue signaling is all the rage in politics these days.
Witness the show Arizona Sen. Martha McSally (R) put on Thursday morning when asked a simple -- and totally fair -- question by CNN's Manu Raju.
As McSally was walking to her office, Raju asked her if she had made a decision about whether she would support the calling of witnesses during the Senate impeachment trial. "You're a liberal hack," she replied. "I'm not talking to you. You're a liberal hack."
Now, that is a rude and inappropriate response to a reporter asking an entirely relevant and non-adversarial question. But maybe McSally could be forgiven for that. After all, we all lose our temper from time to time. But that's not what was going on here. Far from it.
This wasn't McSally getting frustrated in the moment. This was a purposeful piece of performance art designed to endear the senator to the President of the United States and his political base.
Consider:
1) Within minutes of the exchange, McSally had tweeted a video of the exchange with Manu (meaning she or someone on her staff was filming it the entire time)
2) Within an hour of the exchange, McSally's campaign had registered the domain name "liberalhack.com"
3) Within 2 hours of the exchange, the @Trumpwarroom Twitter handle, which is managed by the President's reelection campaign, was touting her attack on Manu -- and urging donations to her 2020 reelection campaign
4) Within 8 hours of the exchange, McSally's campaign was selling "Liberal Hack" T-shirts on its newly registered "LiberalHack.com" website.
5) Within 10 hours of the exchange, McSally was on Fox News Channel -- laughing with Laura Ingraham about the incident.
The only thing missing at this point is a tweet from Trump himself celebrating McSally. Of course, knowing Trump, that could well be coming soon.
The point is that none of this was accidental. McSally knew exactly what she was doing -- and why. After losing a Senate race in 2018 and then being appointed to replace retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R) shortly after, McSally is facing a very difficult race in 2020. She's trailing astronaut Mark Kelly, the likely Democratic nominee, in polling and fundraising. She needs a boost. She needs to rally the Republican base, which has never been all that enthusiastic about her record of relative moderation. And so, she does this.
That it works speaks to the Pavlovian characteristics of our modern political moment -- particularly within the Republican Party. Trump has made attacking journalists -- no matter how baseless, pre-planned and just plain wrong it is -- the sort of thing that elicits cheers (and money) from his base. There's no debate about whether McSally was out of line in responding the way she did to a totally innocuous question. (She was.) Instead she is celebrated as some sort of conservative champion for being rude. That she quite clearly did it purposely to drive exactly the reaction that the Trump base had is ignored or discounted. The bell rings, the dog salivates. The end.
"McSally isn't a strong candidate and her performance art isn't really going to matter, wasn't really appropriate, and won't cost or win her an election," tweeted conservative pundit Erick Erickson on Friday morning. "But it reinforces she's not a strong candidate and is trying to excite the base.
That McSally acted the way she did is bad. That she did it on purpose is even worse. That she's being rewarded for it is just plain appalling.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 2:30 AM
Martha McSally's staggering cynicism
Virtue signaling is all the rage in politics these days.
Witness the show Arizona Sen. Martha McSally (R) put on Thursday morning when asked a simple -- and totally fair -- question by CNN's Manu Raju.
As McSally was walking to her office, Raju asked her if she had made a decision about whether she would support the calling of witnesses during the Senate impeachment trial. "You're a liberal hack," she replied. "I'm not talking to you. You're a liberal hack."
Now, that is a rude and inappropriate response to a reporter asking an entirely relevant and non-adversarial question. But maybe McSally could be forgiven for that. After all, we all lose our temper from time to time. But that's not what was going on here. Far from it.
This wasn't McSally getting frustrated in the moment. This was a purposeful piece of performance art designed to endear the senator to the President of the United States and his political base.
Consider:
1) Within minutes of the exchange, McSally had tweeted a video of the exchange with Manu (meaning she or someone on her staff was filming it the entire time)
2) Within an hour of the exchange, McSally's campaign had registered the domain name "liberalhack.com"
3) Within 2 hours of the exchange, the @Trumpwarroom Twitter handle, which is managed by the President's reelection campaign, was touting her attack on Manu -- and urging donations to her 2020 reelection campaign
4) Within 8 hours of the exchange, McSally's campaign was selling "Liberal Hack" T-shirts on its newly registered "LiberalHack.com" website.
5) Within 10 hours of the exchange, McSally was on Fox News Channel -- laughing with Laura Ingraham about the incident.
The only thing missing at this point is a tweet from Trump himself celebrating McSally. Of course, knowing Trump, that could well be coming soon.
The point is that none of this was accidental. McSally knew exactly what she was doing -- and why. After losing a Senate race in 2018 and then being appointed to replace retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R) shortly after, McSally is facing a very difficult race in 2020. She's trailing astronaut Mark Kelly, the likely Democratic nominee, in polling and fundraising. She needs a boost. She needs to rally the Republican base, which has never been all that enthusiastic about her record of relative moderation. And so, she does this.
That it works speaks to the Pavlovian characteristics of our modern political moment -- particularly within the Republican Party. Trump has made attacking journalists -- no matter how baseless, pre-planned and just plain wrong it is -- the sort of thing that elicits cheers (and money) from his base. There's no debate about whether McSally was out of line in responding the way she did to a totally innocuous question. (She was.) Instead she is celebrated as some sort of conservative champion for being rude. That she quite clearly did it purposely to drive exactly the reaction that the Trump base had is ignored or discounted. The bell rings, the dog salivates. The end.
"McSally isn't a strong candidate and her performance art isn't really going to matter, wasn't really appropriate, and won't cost or win her an election," tweeted conservative pundit Erick Erickson on Friday morning. "But it reinforces she's not a strong candidate and is trying to excite the base.
That McSally acted the way she did is bad. That she did it on purpose is even worse. That she's being rewarded for it is just plain appalling.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 2:30 AM
Monday, January 13, 2020
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report...":
Warren says Sanders 'disagreed' with her belief a woman could win the White House race
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., ramped up the tension with fellow progressive presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Monday night, saying she "thought a woman could win" the White House race, but he "disagreed."
Warren's statement followed a CNN report citing four accounts of a December 2018 meeting between Warren and Sanders, the two progressive rivals in the primary contest, claiming Sanders told Warren he did not believe a women could win the race. Sanders denied the report.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," Warren said in her statement.
She continued, "I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry. I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that's what I'm going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said earlier, in a statement provided to Fox News. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
Sanders also took the opportunity to slam President Trump, stating, "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."
The Vermont senator went on to say he did believe a woman could win the race, referencing the popular vote in the 2016 election.
"Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!" he said. "After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016." Trump, however, defeated Clinton in the electoral vote.
Politico reported earlier on a series of talking points from the Sanders campaign that aimed to paint Warren as a candidate attracting "highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what."
The script added, "She's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party."
Speaking on Sunday in Iowa, Warren said she was disappointed in the talking points from Sanders' campaign and said it ultimately will divide voters at the Democrats' peril.
"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," Warren told reporters. "Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM
Warren says Sanders 'disagreed' with her belief a woman could win the White House race
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., ramped up the tension with fellow progressive presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Monday night, saying she "thought a woman could win" the White House race, but he "disagreed."
Warren's statement followed a CNN report citing four accounts of a December 2018 meeting between Warren and Sanders, the two progressive rivals in the primary contest, claiming Sanders told Warren he did not believe a women could win the race. Sanders denied the report.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," Warren said in her statement.
She continued, "I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry. I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that's what I'm going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said earlier, in a statement provided to Fox News. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
Sanders also took the opportunity to slam President Trump, stating, "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."
The Vermont senator went on to say he did believe a woman could win the race, referencing the popular vote in the 2016 election.
"Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!" he said. "After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016." Trump, however, defeated Clinton in the electoral vote.
Politico reported earlier on a series of talking points from the Sanders campaign that aimed to paint Warren as a candidate attracting "highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what."
The script added, "She's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party."
Speaking on Sunday in Iowa, Warren said she was disappointed in the talking points from Sanders' campaign and said it ultimately will divide voters at the Democrats' peril.
"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," Warren told reporters. "Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report...":
Elizabeth Warren claims Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency
Senator Elizabeth Warren released a statement Monday night alleging that fellow 2020 contender Senator Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency during a meeting in 2018. Her statement comes hours after CNN reported the alleged comment, which Sanders denies.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone," Warren said in the statement.
"Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry," she added.
"We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
Sanders and Warren appeared to have an unspoken agreement not to attack one another during the primary campaign. But on the eve of the seventh presidential debate and weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, the courtesy they've shown toward each other is sure to be tested on the debate stage Tuesday night.
Sanders' campaign released an angry statement from the Vermont senator in response to the CNN report.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
But in a discussion of President Trump's tactics, according to Sanders, sexism did come up during their conversation.
"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," he said.
He went on to invoke his primary opponent in 2016, who defeated him for the Democratic nod but lost to Mr. Trump in the general election. "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Sanders said.
To refute the accusation, Sanders' supporters are also pointing to video of a comment he made in 1988, when he said, "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man — in my view a woman could be elected president of the United States — the real issue is whose side are you on?"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Elizabeth Warren claims Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency
Senator Elizabeth Warren released a statement Monday night alleging that fellow 2020 contender Senator Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency during a meeting in 2018. Her statement comes hours after CNN reported the alleged comment, which Sanders denies.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone," Warren said in the statement.
"Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry," she added.
"We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
Sanders and Warren appeared to have an unspoken agreement not to attack one another during the primary campaign. But on the eve of the seventh presidential debate and weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, the courtesy they've shown toward each other is sure to be tested on the debate stage Tuesday night.
Sanders' campaign released an angry statement from the Vermont senator in response to the CNN report.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
But in a discussion of President Trump's tactics, according to Sanders, sexism did come up during their conversation.
"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," he said.
He went on to invoke his primary opponent in 2016, who defeated him for the Democratic nod but lost to Mr. Trump in the general election. "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Sanders said.
To refute the accusation, Sanders' supporters are also pointing to video of a comment he made in 1988, when he said, "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man — in my view a woman could be elected president of the United States — the real issue is whose side are you on?"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)