The non-aggression pact is really over. At the time, we didn’t hear what was said at the end of this week’s Democratic debate in Iowa, which is another story, but it didn’t seem to be like it was a friendly affair. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) refused to shake hands with Sen. Bernie Sanders. Before the debate, a story leaked that Sanders had told Warren that a woman couldn’t beat Trump at a private dinner. It was a story that was unconfirmed, but Warren later released a statement pretty much saying that’s what Bernie said to her. A progressive civil war is now brewing with both camps accusing the other of lying basically. The Sanders camp is also apoplectic over what they see as a Warren-CNN coordinated hit against their candidate. We’ll have something on that later, but for now—here’s what the two said to each other. Warren is not happy that Bernie pretty much called her a liar on a national platform.
Elizabeth Warren with some words for Bernie Sanders #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/2varfDM9AG
— Jordan Dajani (@JordanDajani) January 15, 2020
For Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, she was wondering why folks are quick to dismiss her allegation against Bernie. With everything that’s going on with Iran, impeachment, and Trump riding high on both—Democrats won’t succeed in removing him and he’s tamed Iran for now—I forgot that Warren is the fake Indian who has lied about other things before. Now, this isn’t really about Haberman, though she was at the receiving end of a refresher course on Warren’s labyrinth of lies—it’s more about why maybe Tomahawk Liz’s allegation might be just good ole’ fashioned hardball politics. She threw a stick of dynamite into the race. She had to since her position in the polls and with Democratic voters was slipping. It’s been that way for weeks and now the Iowa Caucuses are here. Both she and Bernie cannot be nominated and the longer the two refuse to attack, the bigger the hole they fall with liberal voters. No attacks mean both will fail. Both want to win. So, here we are.
Why is the automatic assumption that her version is wrong? Just curious. https://t.co/Ra8qZVLfoJ
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 16, 2020
I think mostly because of her well-earned reputation, unlike Bernie, as someone who makes up stories, including major ones about her ethnicity and career and what not. Like, all of her nicknames are based around this trait. Probably that. https://t.co/ViBg6WDwYl
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 16, 2020
Recommended
A woman who famously lied about her heritage, her grandparents, her parents, her employers, her kids, and even her recipes would never fabricate an unbelievable story about her political opponent weeks before an election. https://t.co/8fYJJ04YEu
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 16, 2020
She lied and said she was Native American on her job application to Harvard. She also likely lied about being discriminated against for being pregnant, telling two totally different stories. She just...lies. https://t.co/Qc046sE03N
— Erielle Davidson (@politicalelle) January 16, 2020
She goes for the gender card. Sanders is going to be asked about this, as will his surrogates. It’s no longer health care, climate change, or how much Trump is the devil for Bernie. It’s the ‘are you a sexist’ roundtable. Good luck, sir.
As for Warren, well, just as she’s hoping that people stop asking her about her health care plan’s promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, which no one in their right mind believes given the costs—she may want to hope that no one asks her about her 1/1024th link to Native Americans, or her firing from a teacher’s job for getting pregnant that didn’t happen. Frankly, I hope she and Bernie get scalped...by the voters.
H/T Members of The Federalist and others who rehashed Warren's falsehoods.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member