Video: Elizabeth Warren’s *Shocked Face* When Told During Debate About Ethics Complaint Against Her
“Senator Warren was fundraising illegally using the vote on Justice Kavanaugh, the confirmation vote, to try to raise money”
Elizabeth Warren and Republican challenger Geoff Diehl had another debate on Tuesday night which included an entertaining moment. Diehl pointed out that Warren’s campaign recently received an ethics complaint, which came as news to Warren.
Mikhael Smits reports at the Washington Free Beacon:
Warren First Learns About Ethics Complaint Against Her During Debate
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) claimed she was unaware of the ethics complaint against her during a U.S. Senate debate in Massachusetts Tuesday.
During the debate, Republican challenger Geoff Diehl pointed out Warren is alleged to have fundraised off Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, asking for donations in exchange for her vote against the nominee.
“Senator Warren was fundraising illegally using the vote on Justice Kavanaugh, the confirmation vote, to try to raise money for her campaigns,” Diehl said…
After some back and forth between the candidates, one of the moderators cut off Warren’s complaint about the president to return to the ethics complaint against her. “I would like to drill down on what Representative Diehl said. The fundraising while the vote was being taken on the Kavanaugh hearing – did you or did you not do that?”
“Actually, I don’t know,” she replied.
The audience gasped.
“Yes, there’s an ethics complaint that has been filed about a fundraising email,” one moderator replied.
Watch the video:
The look on Warren’s face as Diehl describes the complaint is priceless.
Alex Swoyer of the Washington Times has the back story:
Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris accused of breaking fundraising rules over Kavanaugh vote
A watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday against Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — even before they cast their votes against him.
While voting and then asking supporters to back that decision with cash is common, the watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), says asking for money ahead of time crosses the line into vote-buying.
FACT asked the Senate ethics committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and Ms. Harris, California Democrat.
Ms. Warren’s email said she was demanding a delay on the judge’s confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign, while Ms. Harris’s emails detailed several of her actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president’s pick for the high court, and asking for contributions.
The Senate’s rules prohibit senators “cashing in” on using their official positions for personal gain.
Right on cue, the Boston Globe rode to the rescue to defend Warren:
Here’s the deal with the ethics complaint filed against Warren that she calls ‘frivolous’
During the race’s final debate Tuesday, GOP Senate hopeful Geoff Diehl accused Democratic incumbent Elizabeth Warren of “illegally” fund-raising off the controversial confirmation vote for then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Warren was caught off guard by the accusation and said she didn’t know what Diehl was talking about. She said she’d look into it.
It turns out, a conservative group that calls itself the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, or FACT, filed a complaint Monday against Warren and Senator Kamala Harris of California for violating Senate ethics rules with fund-raising e-mails ahead of the final vote on Kavanaugh…
After the debate, Warren told reporters that the group filing the complaint “is one of these shadowy dark money groups,” and their complaint is “frivolous.” Indeed, anyone can file an ethics complaint.
Everyone should find someone who loves them as much as the Globe loves Warren.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is my shocked face that Democrats would do something illegal to remain in power. Shocked I tell you!
If I could bottle that, I would put it on my pancakes every morning. It would be delicious.
For the sake of accuracy, this is an allegation of a Senate ethics rule, not a violation of law.
Two different things.
Nobody said it was a violation of law. Go back to sleep and dream of Hillary as President.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/video-elizabeth-warrens-shocked-face-when-told-during-debate-about-ethics-complaint-against-her/comment-page-1/#comment-896855
AND, from the GOP candidate…
“Senator Warren was fundraising illegally using the vote on Justice Kavanaugh, the confirmation vote, to try to raise money”
STFU, you poor idiot.
Rags: “STFU, you poor idiot.”
Now now Francis. You know that if you keep using such language, you’ll force the Professor to issue another toothless warning and then back down.
Why do you keep humiliating Professor Jacobson like this?
No worries, I’m sure Fuzzy will be along any moment to censor your profanity. For integrity sake.
Any moment now…
You apparently think letting something like a Ratbert lie is supportable.
Figures.
What would Breitbart do, and how would he say it, Francis?
Ouch, my crazy ex-girlfriend stalker is still whinging on. The prof is not humiliated, Fen, and I have no idea why you think it’s a good idea to keep attacking him (and me). We’re a small operation, and I suspect the prof expects to have his house treated with some respect. That it is not, is not a reflection on him. He has repeatedly called for civility, and we (editors) have done what we can to monitor comments, but we have other duties here that take up far more of our time.
As always, you have a choice: stay here and deal with the rules, including our attempts to work comment moderation into our other duties or leave. You have no “right” to post here, so if you don’t like the situation, just leave. What do you hope to accomplish by smearing the prof and crazy-ex-girlfriend-stalking me?
If you throw a rock at a crowd, the person who screams is the one who got hit.
And I’m not “attacking” you or the Professor. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy.
1) You delete my posts responding to personal attacks while leaving their initial personal attacks up.
2) You escalate our “misunderstanding” into even more dramatic levels of silly because you are too weak to offer a sincere apology, and
3) the Professor asks we respect him and his blog while he exposes his guests to constant abuse by Rags, without any consequence. Clearly, the Professor doesn’t respect us.
These are valid points. But you can’t handle them fairly so I fully expect you to start deleting everything you dislike again.
Nobody respects you and your egomaniac’s campaign to take over these threads.
Note to Hen: it ain’t workin’…
Heh…!!!
Actually, Mr. Diehl did use the word “illegal” which indicates a violation of law. He should have said “unethical”.
You’re correct. He should have used “unethically” rather than “illegally.” But it is illegal for a legislator to solicit cash on the basis that they will then perform an official act, which they haven’t performed yet.
“(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; ”
It is not, as I understand the law, necessary to prove that the corrupt official was a priori inclined to do the thing anyway.
https://www.facebook.com/118726048192230/photos/a.1562430903821730/2067266460004836/?type=3&eid=ARDRV956uOVZic48BttoAkk9jmrsgpsKYKAwX_I8s_ARRhtapr8FWdvB6FK9xJlmxLj-6jIi47UiivwM&__tn__=EHH-R
You are in a very narrow sense correct. At the moment it’s only an allegation violating Senate ethics rules. But it’s hard to see how, if that ethics violation is substantiated, Warren didn’t also violate 18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and Witnesses. Specifically para (2) a through c.
Um…
This seems pretty weaksauce. (And I say that as a Massachusetts resident voting for Diehl.)
There are lots and lots and lots of things not to like about Senator Warren, but the fact that she fundraised off a prominent political issue before, rather than after, the vote doesn’t seem like it’s one of them. Especially since absolutely no one believes there was any chance at all that Senator Warren was ever going to vote to confirm any candidate nominated by President Trump.
There’s no quid-pro-quo, just the usual political advertising — give us money so we can fight the evil-other-party on the-most-important-issue-in-the-headlines-right-now!
If you want to complain about vote-buying — let’s talk about the GoFundMe to oppose Collins, unless she voted the way the GoFundMe raisers wanted her to.
Admittedly, the chances that she will actually be censured or punished in any way over this are incredibly slim. But her opponents for the 2020 nomination will still be able use this video against her and that’s just fine.
Some things aren’t about winning the whole war, or even one battle. She’s still going to win re-election, after all. But the facade has lost another chip, her presidential aspirations are reduced even more. This is a good thing.
Good points.
Lately I’ve been wondering if passivity is a feature of conservatism, instead of a bug. We have to get in the habit of going on the offensive, exercise those muscles, even over the little things.
If we dont even take the field, we rob our opponent of the opportunity to fumble the ball away to us.
Witness Trump’s DNA play. I thought it was a Hail Mary pass. No hope, why bother. But then Warren intercepted it and ran the wrong way, into her own endzone, giving us a 2 point safety.
There’s an old war story. Elite German infantry unit holding an impregnable fortress. Allied irregulars had no hope of taking it, but they changed the walls anyway. And were slaughtered down to the very last man.
The German general flu in after the battle to gloat and award the unit some medal. As he flew back to Berlin, lightning struck his aircraft and he plunged to his death.
The German infantry unit, losing their best tactician, never won another battle.
Murphy can’t help us if we dont even force our opponents to take the field.
Shorter: cconservatives tend to err on the side of caution. If we are going to make mistakes, let them be aggressive ones.
When was the last time we over-played our hand?
If we were at a poker table, wouldn’t our opponents take advantage of our tendency to always play it safe?
Same Shite Different Day.
Warren lied about Trump making fun of Ford, he made fun of the litany of things Ford didn’t know about the supposedly most tragic, life changing event of her life. It was about the weak allegations Ford brought in a political manner, not Ford herself. Of course Warren knows it, but she is never called out for her lies, she is a Democrat, so she can lie with impunity and never suffer consequences for it. Just like her cultural appropriation.
Oh, look. Never Trumpers running to the defense of leftists.
Lawfare is the use of legal procedures to attack a political opponent. In the case of Putin, it is used to take the profits of a successful company for self enrichment. The false justification is based on criminalized paper work mistakes. It was the business model of the Inquisition. You blasphemed the Church. You can avoid the stake with this plea deal. Does anyone think the splendors of the Vatican were financed by the collection plate?
The Mueller investigation is lawfare if you do not believe it would have been done if Clinton were President.
Lawfare violates Fifth Amendment procedural due process of the defendant. It should be banned by changes in the laws of Civil and of Criminal Procedure.
By the way, if you have a job, you commit 3 federal felonies a day, and lawfare may be used against you.
Well, the Globe has to protect the ethnic minority candidate.
Believe in something! Even if it’s only .098% possibly true.
I think she is shocked because she thought Cherokee’s had sovereign immunity.
No. That wasn’t a native American face caught in the spotlight. It was a naive American face caught in the spotlight.
Of course, you would have be either a naive or an evil individual to vote for her.
She has 1/1024th immunity.
What I find interesting is that Warren doesn’t like when Diehl doesn’t respond to her question but never mind her not responding to his allegation. This is is the hypocrisy the Left lives by everyday. Thank God a moderator didn’t let her off the hook!
Yea, who is that Moderator? That person needs to be offered the chance to moderate at least one presidental debate.
What kind of staff work is it that does not immediately notify the senator that an ethics complaint has been filed against her, before she takes the podium for debate?
Hilariously incompetent, that kind. Or else she knew and just decided to deny, deny, deny, knowing she can let the media carry her water with claims the complaint is frivolous.
“Chief Deer In Headlights”
she knows she stepped in it…
but she also knows that the MFM will cover for her, just like the usual suspects here are.
it’s all so predictable: corrupt politicians, corrupt “news” and corrupt trolls.
If she’s 1/1024th innocent, that should be enough shouldn’t it?
The Senate’s rules prohibit senators “cashing in” on using their official positions for personal gain.
What is this “personal gain”? Are they looting their re-election funds to finance their vacation homes or private jets? If so, that would be a good thing to attack. Otherwise, it’s pretty weak stuff.
“Everyone should find someone who loves them as much as the Globe loves Warren.”
Hahaha! Favorite sentence that I’ve read in a while!!! Such unabashed bias, such “love” is hard to come by….
She’s such a terrible liar – how did she ever become a politician?
She must have trained with Dr. Fraud’s voice coach. This is literally the first time I have heard her NOT in an angry screech.