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
Saturday, January 18, 2020
[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
Sunday, January 12, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on CNN’s Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up .....
Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "CNN's Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up ....":
Stephen Colbert to Trump and Bloomberg: Get out of my Super Bowl ads
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has spent a whopping $100 million on campaign ads in one month, with his biggest drop yet on a $10 million Super Bowl ad, saying "the biggest point is getting under Trump's skin," — the president's re-election campaign has also booked an ad during the game on Feb. 2.
Well, friends, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert had one thing to say to politicians on Wednesday night: "Get out of my SuperBowl commercials."
Is it too much to ask? Colbert just wants what we all want. "I don't want to see politicians. That's not what the day is for. I don't want to see candidates for political office. I only want to see friendships between horses and puppies. And inter-racial couples enjoying cereal. I want to cry because of a truck."
But it's not just any old ad truck that can make Colbert cry. It's the father-son relationship built around the truck. Look, just watch it.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:51 AM
Stephen Colbert to Trump and Bloomberg: Get out of my Super Bowl ads
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has spent a whopping $100 million on campaign ads in one month, with his biggest drop yet on a $10 million Super Bowl ad, saying "the biggest point is getting under Trump's skin," — the president's re-election campaign has also booked an ad during the game on Feb. 2.
Well, friends, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert had one thing to say to politicians on Wednesday night: "Get out of my SuperBowl commercials."
Is it too much to ask? Colbert just wants what we all want. "I don't want to see politicians. That's not what the day is for. I don't want to see candidates for political office. I only want to see friendships between horses and puppies. And inter-racial couples enjoying cereal. I want to cry because of a truck."
But it's not just any old ad truck that can make Colbert cry. It's the father-son relationship built around the truck. Look, just watch it.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:51 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on CNN’s Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up .....
Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "CNN's Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up ....":
Trump Indicates He'll Seek To Block Key Impeachment Witnesses' Testimonies At Trial
President Donald Trump signaled in an interview aired Friday that he would seek to block key witnesses from testifying in the Senate's impeachment trial, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Trump ordered the men, and several other witnesses, not to cooperate with the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry about his pressure campaign on Ukraine to produce political dirt against Democrats.
Now, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepares to transmit two articles of impeachment to the Senate for an impeachment trial, Trump implied he would seek to do the same in that chamber.
Asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham if he would invoke executive privilege in an attempt to prevent Bolton from testifying, Trump said "I think you have to, for the sake of the office."
Bolton witnessed several attempts by Trump administration officials to pressure Ukraine to do the President's political bidding.
At one point, referring to the EU ambassador and the White House chief of staff, Bolton reportedly told a deputy "I am not part of whatever drug deal [Gordon] Sondland and [Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up."
After a judge dismissed his lawsuit seeking an answer on whether he was obliged to testify, Bolton announced last week that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Trump similarly suggested Friday he would seek to prevent potential testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney and Perry.
"I would love everybody to testify," he said. "I would like Mick to testify, I like Mike Pompeo to testify. I like Rick Perry to testify. I want everybody. But there are things that you can't do from the standpoint of executive privilege."
"You have to maintain that," Trump continued. "So we'll see where it all goes. But especially a national security adviser, you can't have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China, North Korea, everything. You just can't do that."
A few GOP senators have hinted that they would be open to hearing witnesses later on in the Senate trial, but that hasn't reassured Democrats; Pelosi has withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks in an attempt to build political pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses that were not part of the House's hearings to testify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:42 AM
Trump Indicates He'll Seek To Block Key Impeachment Witnesses' Testimonies At Trial
President Donald Trump signaled in an interview aired Friday that he would seek to block key witnesses from testifying in the Senate's impeachment trial, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Trump ordered the men, and several other witnesses, not to cooperate with the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry about his pressure campaign on Ukraine to produce political dirt against Democrats.
Now, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepares to transmit two articles of impeachment to the Senate for an impeachment trial, Trump implied he would seek to do the same in that chamber.
Asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham if he would invoke executive privilege in an attempt to prevent Bolton from testifying, Trump said "I think you have to, for the sake of the office."
Bolton witnessed several attempts by Trump administration officials to pressure Ukraine to do the President's political bidding.
At one point, referring to the EU ambassador and the White House chief of staff, Bolton reportedly told a deputy "I am not part of whatever drug deal [Gordon] Sondland and [Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up."
After a judge dismissed his lawsuit seeking an answer on whether he was obliged to testify, Bolton announced last week that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Trump similarly suggested Friday he would seek to prevent potential testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney and Perry.
"I would love everybody to testify," he said. "I would like Mick to testify, I like Mike Pompeo to testify. I like Rick Perry to testify. I want everybody. But there are things that you can't do from the standpoint of executive privilege."
"You have to maintain that," Trump continued. "So we'll see where it all goes. But especially a national security adviser, you can't have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China, North Korea, everything. You just can't do that."
A few GOP senators have hinted that they would be open to hearing witnesses later on in the Senate trial, but that hasn't reassured Democrats; Pelosi has withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks in an attempt to build political pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses that were not part of the House's hearings to testify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:42 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)