With few exceptions, Elizabeth Warren’s not getting much media pushback for her bald-faced lie about Michael Brown’s death.
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019
BREAKING: Here's the @nytimes and @washingtonpost on @ewarren's and @KamalaHarris's false statements and accusations of murder against a police officer in the Michael Brown/Ferguson incident:
??? pic.twitter.com/OgprOqe6yb
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) August 12, 2019
As far as I can determine by my searches, none of the networks (@abcnews, @CBSNews, @NBCNews or @CNN) have reported on @ewarren & @KamalaHarris's murder accusations either.
I mean, in some ways, it must irritate the two of them to not get noticed for such outrageous statements. https://t.co/n02Pmq51Ge
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) August 12, 2019
Even the bravest of brave firefighters can’t fight every fire. They’re too busy spraying water at Donald Trump helping to propagate a conspiracy theory about Jeffrey Epstein’s death:
Spreading conspiracies is stupid and unhelpful, and for Trump to traffic in them is decidedly inappropriate and most definitely unpresidential. But does that excuse a Democrat and aspiring president who peddles and propagates blatant falsehoods for the purpose of winding people up?
Pay not attention to Elizabeth Warren stirring racial hatred and antagonism against the police by lying about Michael Brown’s death. No, our media betters want you to singularly pay attention to Donald Trump retweeting a conspiracy theory about Epstein.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 11, 2019
Recommended
If you ask everyone’s favorite expert Tom Nichols, there’s a big difference between Trump pushing inflammatory lies and Elizabeth Warren pushing them.
Amazingly, we take it a bit more seriously when the chief magistrate, and the CinC holding the nuclear codes, tweets complete lunacy that undermines the rule of law and suggests he is as unhinged as the average 3am Facebook poster, yes. https://t.co/GlkbTevanU
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Isn't Warren running for that job?
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 12, 2019
She's a model of stability and good sense by comparison, with a more conservative trade policy.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
The question is whether the media should just ignore her saying & doing irresponsible & false things, just because she's not president *yet*. I refuse to accept "whatabout Trump" as an all-purpose excuse for misconduct. Because we both know the next D is gonna milk that hard.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 12, 2019
I’m good with holding her feet to the fire and calling out every dumb thing she says. But because she is not emotionally disturbed and in bed with a foreign power, I will vote for her if she is the nominee. It’s that simple.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Tom Nichols is not a conservative. It’s that simple.
My conservative pals like @baseballcrank think I'm giving a pass to Warren and others. I'm not. I'm saying: Because Warren or other likely Dem nominees are (a) not emotionally unstable and (b) not colluding with enemy foreign powers, I will vote for her or any of them. /1
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
But you are giving her a pass, Tom. You’re giving every Democrat a pass for all the horrible things they’ve said and done because you hate Trump.
I can agree to disagree with Tom on this; "anyone to stop Trump" is a defensible position. What I will never stop pushing back on is the view in some quarters that "whatabout Trump" means 1) the Democrat gets a pass from criticism and/or 2) you can vote D & not own what they do. https://t.co/3VhH8nVLUA
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 12, 2019
I have reached the point where my requirement for a president is "not dangerously unstable" and "not in bed with a hostile foreign power." You'd think that would be easy to find, but no, not in the GOP. So Dems, if you pass those two tests, your nominee has my vote. /2
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
So as long as they’re “not dangerously unstable” according to Tom, their lurch to the hard Left on abortion, border security, gun control, health care, and just about everything else isn’t grounds for failing his test? Their refusal to purge their ranks of anti-Semitism doesn’t deserve an F?
Yes, I get it, that means I will be voting to get rid of Trump by voting for some nominee who might be trying to institute a national allotment to wear waffles as underwear or something. I get it. They'll have dumb policies. Really dumb.
But not "unstable" and "colluding." /3— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
I don't even care that Trump is a bad person. (Well, I don't care enough to make a difference.) Lots of POTUSes have been bad people.
– Not emotionally unhinged
– Not in bed with enemy foreign powers.That's it. That's my line. Biden? Fine? Warren? Sure. Harris. Okay. /4
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
I am not going to pretend that there is *any* policy important enough to me to put up with a man who is dangerously irrational and who has signaled that he will continue to take help from an enemy while attacking our own IC and LE communities. Nope. /5
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
But he’ll continue to pretend that he gives a damn about conserving conservatism.
I'm sure I'll be squicked out by whoever the Dems pick for jobs like AG. But not as much as I am by Barr, Mnuchin, and the rest of these throne-sniffing courtiers. So, there it is. Warren can threaten to tax used kitty litter for all I care. Not unstable, not colluding. Done. /6x
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Problem is that she, like POTUS, has amplified megaphone, HUGE following.
Her description of Brown shooting as *murder* was beyond reckless, incendiary.
As you’ve described the cult of Trump, her followers hear her (& Harris, former prosecutor) & believe cops are “assassins.”
— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) August 12, 2019
Okay. I'll take her over the guy who undermines his own FBI and IC in favor of Putin and Kim. Easy choice.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Tom, don’t think you’ve EVER heard me condone unpardonable sins of the president.
But when two leading voices of *moderation* and clear alternatives, as you’ve described them (one being the highest LE Official in CA) make a baseless charge like that — murder? — are we all good?
— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) August 12, 2019
I'll take this over the record of the past two years of lies and completely insane accusations, yes. So, "are we good?" No. Warren is a politician saying something reckless and dumb. But Trump is a crisis. You can keep asking, and my answer won't change.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Trump certainly ushered in an era of an insane “new normal.”
I fear the opposition will just supply a different type of insanity …
Boldly asserting that Michael Brown was *murdered* is pandering to a constituency and as much a lie as any of Trump’s innumerable whoppers.
— James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) August 12, 2019
No, it isn't. It's pretty much standard-issue leftist hyperbole, and while I don't like it, I don't think Warren is (a) emotionally unstable or (b) in bed with a hostile foreign power. I think Trump is both of those things, so if it's him vs. her, she's got my vote.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 12, 2019
Did we fall asleep and wake up in some kind of parallel universe where Donald Trump saying awful things justifies every horrible Democratic policy and platform? Elizabeth Warren’s far-leftist authoritarianism is OK because Donald Trump said nice things about Kim Jong-un? Expertise didn’t just die; it was murdered. By Nichols himself.
Nice standards.
— Gʀᴇɢ Oʀʏᴇʟ (@Greg_Oryel) August 12, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member