Saturday, March 21, 2020

THE SENATE "ETHICS" COMMITTEE: THE BIGGEST HOAX PERPETRATED BY A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT

Schweizer: Burr Being Investigated by Senate Ethics Like Someone Being Investigated by Their Family

1:01
On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Breitbart News senior contributor and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer stated that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee is comparable to someone accused of wrongdoing being investigated by their family, and stated that Burr’s conduct needs to be investigated by the DOJ.
Schweizer said that Burr’s behavior is “a slam dunk case of insider trading.”
He added, “And the suggestion that this is going to go to the Senate Ethics Committee, Tucker, that would be like you and I getting into trouble and saying we’re going to let our family look into this. Nothing’s going to come clear from the Senate Ethics Committee. It needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
HILLARY & BILLARY AND RED CHINA!


“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game.  The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president.  Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”

THE CLINTONS AND RED CHINA:
A MONEY MAKING TRAITORSHIP!
"Ask Jeff Sessions about the charges.  Money was flowing into the Clinton Foundation from all over the world, disguised, rerouted through a Canadian charity, all to obscure its origins."

Chinese Ambassador Lauds Hillary Clinton’s Attack on President Trump: ‘Justice Always Speak Loudly’

An ambassador from China is lauding Hillary Clinton’s recent attack on President Trump.
“The president is turning to racist rhetoric to distract from his failures to take the coronavirus seriously early on, make tests widely available, and adequately prepare the country for a period of crisis,” Clinton wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.
“Don’t fall for it. Don’t let your friends and family fall for it.”


The president is turning to racist rhetoric to distract from his failures to take the coronavirus seriously early on, make tests widely available, and adequately prepare the country for a period of crisis.

Don't fall for it. Don't let your friends and family fall for it.

That prompted a response from a representative of the communist regime, the Chinese ambassador to South Africa, Lin Songtian.
He shared a tweet from China News Service, a regime-owned agency:


It is true. Justice always speak loudly. https://twitter.com/Echinanews/status/1240941153479876609 


The attached article listed several Americans, namely Clinton and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), criticizing Trump for blaming China.
“It is true,” Lin wrote regarding Clinton’s attack that Trump calling coronavirus a “Chinese virus” is “racist rhetoric.”
“Justice always speak [sic] loudly.”
Clinton has repeatedly taken potshots at Trump during the coronavirus crisis.
“Hospitals are already running out of ventilators and beds. Nurses are using bandanas as masks,” she typed on Thursday.


Arming China -- The Bill Clinton Connection
We even sold them our factories.
March 19, 2020 
Michael Ledeen
Conversations on social media are beginning to stress the urgency of reconsidering our relationship with the People’s Republic of China. It was only recently that most Americans discovered that most of our pharmaceuticals are manufactured in China, and that the Chinese are in a position to withhold them during an emergency of the sort we now face.
Recent stories have documented Chinese espionage, including the bribery of top American biochemists at places like Harvard, that entailed the constant travel of U.S. experts between China and the United States. Given the short memories of American political leaders, these stories have made it appear as though espionage is of very recent vintage. 
But it is not so. The United States has been arming China for more than 20 years.
In the Spring of 1997, Stephen Bryen and I wrote a detailed account in Heterodoxy, a magazine edited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, dealing with American export controls of militarily useful technology. It was entered into the Congressional Record by Tillie Fowler, a Florida representative.
The theme of the account was how the Clinton Administration was arming China. Knowingly and deliberately.
It is often said that, in the world of advanced technology, embargoes or export controls cannot possibly work, because if they don't get it from us, they'll get it from somebody else.
This is false. To compete with the U.S. militarily, China has to get our technology, and, most of the time, that means getting it directly from us.
Steve and I knew that Bill Clinton and his foreign policy team were busily arming Beijing, which in turn armed “rogue nations” such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Remember this all happened about 25 years ago. We noted that, on the one hand, it did make sense to sell a very limited amount of advanced military technology to the Communist Chinese, for example devices for nuclear safety, or for certain military systems with important civilian applications, such as satellite launchers. But the Clinton Administration was not doing that. Instead, it was executing a deliberate policy—apparently one that had full approval from the top levels of the Administration, despite the vigorous opposition from government agencies and from individual officials infuriated at the flow of top technology to China. This often took the form of selling off some of our finest factories to China, at pennies on the dollar, and included our finest supercomputers and the key element to modern jet engines, which had been blocked for export to the Soviet bloc.
The Pentagon redefined supercomputers as “civilian” products, and some 46 of them, including IBM, Convex (later, Hewlett Packard) and Silicon Graphics, were sold, many of them to the Chinese defense industry, or being put to use in nuclear weapons design.
This represents a truly terrifying hemorrhage, for supercomputers are the central nervous system of modern warfare. The sales of 46 supercomputers give the Chinese more of these crucial devices than are in use in the Pentagon, the military services, and the intelligence community…
They enable the Chinese to more rapidly design state-of-the-art weapons, add stealth capability to their missiles and aircraft, improve their anti-submarine warfare technology, and dramatically enhance their ability to design and build smaller nuclear weapons suitable for cruise missiles. Thanks to the folly of the Clinton Administration, the Chinese can now conduct tests of nuclear weapons, conventional explosives, and chemical and biological weapons on supercomputers.
That was the first wave. In the years since, we have bent over backwards to enable the Chinese to strengthen themselves, and it wasn’t until President Trump shut down air travel to and from the PRC in early 2020—in response to the global virus pandemic, not in the name of national security—that we began to get a grip on the massive influx of Chinese spies. But it’s important to remember that it all began with an American decision to arm China.
There are those who say that we had to strengthen China to act as a bulwark against Russia, but I don’t buy that. The big shift to Chinese manufacture came because they could make things far more cheaply than others could. That’s the profit motive, not national security.
Photo: Gage Skidmore

Stunning! Hillary Clinton thanked by Chinese diplomat for criticizing Trump as racist over ‘Chinese flu’ label

Hillary Clinton has chosen sides, and she is so firmly enlisted in the Chinese propaganda effort to evade responsibility for foisting the COVID-19 virus on the world that an ambassador from that country has publicly endorsed her on Twitter in the name of “justice.”
Perhaps in the twisted worldview of pathological Trump hatred, it is a good thing to side with the progenitor of a plague upon the world, the country that openly plans to displace the United States and establish itself as the world’s hegemon.
Here is the tweet spotted by Rep. Paul Gosar:


As American Thinker readers know, identifying a virus by its place of origin is well established, and has never before been regarded as “racist.”  When was "German measles" w=ever denounced as a racist name?  Many progressive politicians and media figures called Coronavirus, as it was then known, the “Wuhan virus” early on.  When China’s strategy turned to denying its culpability and some propaganda organs absurdly claimed that US soldiers had seeded the virus in China, the claims of racism started appearing.
China has been behaving like an enemy, threatening to cut off supplies of pharmaceuticals (and thereby kill Amercans).  Siding with an enemy in a time of crisis has never before been a winning strategy, except when one’s homeland is defeated, at which point one becomes a Quisling.
Perhaps the former Secretary of State was misled into thinking this was a wise move by the dominant media efforts in support of China’s propaganda line.
There will be a reckoning.  
Hillary Clinton has chosen sides, and she is so firmly enlisted in the Chinese propaganda effort to evade responsibility for foisting the COVID-19 virus on the world that an ambassador from that country has publicly endorsed her on Twitter in the name of “justice.”
Perhaps in the twisted worldview of pathological Trump hatred, it is a good thing to side with the progenitor of a plague upon the world, the country that openly plans to displace the United States and establish itself as the world’s hegemon.
Here is the tweet spotted by Rep. Paul Gosar:



As American Thinker readers know, identifying a virus by its place of origin is well established, and has never before been regarded as “racist.”  When was "German measles" w=ever denounced as a racist name?  Many progressive politicians and media figures called Coronavirus, as it was then known, the “Wuhan virus” early on.  When China’s strategy turned to denying its culpability and some propaganda organs absurdly claimed that US soldiers had seeded the virus in China, the claims of racism started appearing.
China has been behaving like an enemy, threatening to cut off supplies of pharmaceuticals (and thereby kill Amercans).  Siding with an enemy in a time of crisis has never before been a winning strategy, except when one’s homeland is defeated, at which point one becomes a Quisling.
Perhaps the former Secretary of State was misled into thinking this was a wise move by the dominant media efforts in support of China’s propaganda line.
There will be a reckoning.  

TAKING DOWN AMERICA - WHO WORKS HARDER FOR THE CHINESE? TRUMP, OR THE RED DEMS? HILLARY, BILLARY, BIDEN AND FEINSTEIN & PIMP RICHARD BLUM?

Are America, and Trump, being played?


Our concern about Donald Trump in the campaign of 2016 was not about his personal morals.  The ultimate choice to vote for him was made easier by the manifest political criminality of Hillary Clinton.  And his emergence as an America First, America-loving president was a welcome relief after the apology tour presidency of Barack Obama. 
The concern about Donald Trump was that he had no ideological core.  His public political persona was that of a fairly standard liberal Democrat from New York, but one smart enough over his career to shift around and play both sides of the political aisle as necessary to support his business interests and ambitions.
But the problem with a leader with no ideological core surfaces in a time of crisis.  He will display who he really is.  Which may include a lot of good parts—i.e., he may have the street smarts of a New York real estate developer, and he may have an insightful and creative mind for addressing big challenges.  But with no governing philosophy developed over years of deeper thinking, he may not have that ‘true north’ of wisdom that filters and shapes the right steps to take to protect America.
That surely sounds like heresy to the mainstream Trump supporter, especially on the surface of evaluating his performance in handling the CCP Virus crisis.  Because on that surface, Trump appears masterful:  facing the cameras every day, demonstrating a president in command; offering confidence that America will prevail; and exercising the far-reaching powers of the Presidency to ‘care’ for Americans on a scale that no one would confuse with a philosophy of limited government.  His use of unprecedented wartime powers is winning praise from CNN’s Dana Bash, from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and from Squad member Ilhan Omar—that ought to tell you something about the non-ideological nature of how he is behaving.
But here’s the rub:  America has never been brought to her knees to the level happening right now, on Trump’s watch.  Not in the Civil War.  Not in WWI or WWII, and certainly not at any time during the Cold War.  Forty million Californians sheltered in place—by order of an American government official?  Schools closed from coast to coast; and restaurants closed in every major state…by order of American government officials?  And movements toward gun control and limited rights to gather—by order of American government officials? And nationalized healthcare achieved in important practical respects without the inconvenience of having to pass laws?
And all of this to fight a pandemic of still unclear comparative seriousness that originated in anti-American communist China, and is being cheered on, magnified and roiled relentlessly by the anti-American left, including especially the MSM. 
If this isn't a deliberate plot to take down America and every safeguard of American freedom, how would it look different if it was?
It feels increasingly like Americans are watching execution of a plan to take down America as a constitutional republic, and Trump as president, fed by a CIA-type psychological assessment of Trump that bet on his ‘go big’ instincts that are untethered by a deep ideological understanding and appreciation for what truly makes America exceptional and great.
One can almost picture the idea popping up in a John Brennan-type’s head:  Pandemic!  That’s the ticket.  There are a couple of generations of Americans who’ve dismissed God and faith; they can be counted on to be ‘frightenable’ out of their minds by the prospect of a runaway disease, and won’t raise a peep of dissent against any action government might take in the name of caring for them.  And Trump can be counted on to throw restraint to the winds.  There will be no real nod to the idea of trusting Americans and trusting American freedom to cope, adapt and overcome.  Trump could be counted on to embrace all-powerful nanny-state government on steroids.  By doing so as a so-called Republican with populist support, Trump could be maneuvered to deliver all necessary precedents for an eventual leftist president to overthrow the Constitution in the name of dealing with a ‘public health crisis’. 
Whether Trump wins re-election in 2020 matters less and less to the left; the pieces are in place; the ‘pandemic play’ has done the trick that Naziism, communism and socialism could not do from the outside.
So if it is a plot—who are the plotters?  Deep State intelligence holdovers in cahoots with the CCP?  Is George Soros in the mix?  Or is this just another conspiracy theory in the age of conspiracy theories?
We’d prefer to believe that it IS a conspiracy theory with no merit. 
But we would also have preferred to believe that America’s DOJ and FBI were not capable of the manifestly criminal behavior that they engaged in the runup to and aftermath of Trump’s election—all with the purpose of overthrowing the duly elected American president. 
We would have preferred to believe that no American Congressman would have been capable of the tyrannical abuse of the rule of law that Adam Schiff transparently engaged in to promote an impeachment and removal of the duly elected American president. 
And we would prefer to believe that we would never see America in the condition it is in right now—paralyzed by fear and ordered into passive submission by actions of the American government. 
And so we, along with millions of other Americans, are not sure what to believe about what is happening to this country in March 2020.  It feels like we are being played.
Eric Georgatos and wife Debbie operate the America, Can We Talk? media platform, with 4 day a week video podcasting by Debbie, and weekly written commentary, all centered around the importance and value of preserving America as founded.



Biden Should Pick Warren as VP, Immediately

It would give him serious leverage on the single-biggest issue facing the nation.



Tuesday night, as Joe Biden was waiting for the polls to close in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona—states he would win handily—Elizabeth Warren published this Twitter thread:
Warren Tweet







This is brilliant. The moment to impose needed reforms on American industries is precisely when a crisis hits and they’re coming hat in hand to Washington asking for bailouts.
If I were Joe Biden, I’d immediately announce Warren as my vice-presidential pick. I’d further say that I agree with her bail out terms, and that while I don’t have a vote in the Senate, she does and she’s my proxy.
Such a move would give Biden serious leverage on a host of fronts.
First, by elevating Warren and her agenda, he’d be sending the message to Bernie voters that as president he really is willing to pursue serious structural change of the rules of American capitalism. Such a message would help unify the left and moderate wings of the Democratic Party while undercutting whatever argument Sanders still has for staying in the race.
Second, it would make Biden a power player in the immensely significant decisions that are going to be made in Washington in the coming weeks and months. Presuming he and Warren can come to terms—that is, he would have to agree to follow her lead on policy ideas but she’d have to agree that he’s the boss and not to go too far beyond what he’s comfortable with—her pronouncements on the Senate floor would be seen as the word of the presumptive Democratic nominee. As such, other Democratic lawmakers would be more inclined to support her positions. That would help unify the Democrats behind an aggressive set of demands they’d place before Mitch McConnell and, ultimately, Donald Trump, on the terms of any stimulus/bailout package. Every time Trump gives into a Democratic congressional demand, he would in essence be conceding to Joe Biden—months before the November elections.
This might sound fanciful. But is not far from the situation Biden’s boss Barack Obama found himself in during the winter of 2008-2009, when the auto industry sought billions of dollars in federal loans to stave off collapse in the midst of the financial crisis. Washington responded, but with stiff terms dictated mostly by congressional Democrats and Obama, who at the time hadn’t even been inaugurated.
Though Republicans refused to support a bailout bill, George W. Bush, as a lame duck, reversed himself and reluctantly agreed to use money from the TARP funds, created to fund the banks, for the auto industry bailout—precisely the position Obama had been advocating, and on the terms he’d called for—and months later, as president, Obama stiffened the terms when the auto companies asked for more money. The terms included the firing of car company CEOs and boards, elimination of unprofitable brands and dealerships, and new production of low-mileage cars, including electric models, in American plants (recall that part of the problem at the time was that Detroit had gone all in on SUVs and light trucks that they couldn’t move because of high oil prices).
Rightwing free marketers, as well as some on the left, condemned the auto company bailouts. But the truth is they not only saved the industry but helped keep the country out of another Great Depression–and the U.S. Treasury ultimately recovered all but about $9 billion of the $80 billion it invested in the industry.
All of this history will be revisited as the debate over the government’s economic response to the coronavirus picks up—including the fact that Trump was for the auto industry bailout before he was against it. By choosing Warren as his VP, Biden can put himself in the center of that action and start pushing Trump around on the single biggest issue facing the nation.



OBAMA-BIDEN AND THEIR BANKSTERS:

And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. RYAN COOPER

The Rise of Wall Street Thievery
How corporations and their apologists blew up the New Deal order and pillaged the middle class.
America has long had a suspicious streak toward business, from the Populists and trustbusters to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. It’s a tendency that has increased over the last few decades. In 1973, 36 percent of respondents told Gallup they had only “some” confidence in big business, while 20 percent had “very little.” But in 2019, those numbers were 41 and 32 percent—near the highs registered during the financial crisis.
Clearly, something has happened to make us sour on the American corporation. What was once a stable source of long-term employment and at least a modicum of paternalistic benefits has become an unstable, predatory engine of inequality. Exactly what went wrong is well documented in Nicholas Lemann’s excellent new book, Transaction Man. The title is a reference to The Organization Man, an influential 1956 book on the corporate culture and management of that era. Lemann, a New Yorker staff writer and Columbia journalism professor (as well as a Washington Monthly contributing editor), details the development of the “Organization” style through the career of Adolf Berle, a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s brain trust. Berle argued convincingly that despite most of the nation’s capital being represented by the biggest 200 or so corporations, the ostensible owners of these firms—that is, their shareholders—had little to no influence on their daily operations. Control resided instead with corporate managers and executives.
Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream
by Nicholas Lemann
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 320 pp.
Berle was alarmed by the wealth of these mega-corporations and the political power it generated, but also believed that bigness was a necessary concomitant of economic progress. He thus argued that corporations should be tamed, not broken up. The key was to harness the corporate monstrosities, putting them to work on behalf of the citizenry.
Berle exerted major influence on the New Deal political economy, but he did not get his way every time. He was a fervent supporter of the National Industrial Recovery Act, an effort to directly control corporate prices and production, which mostly flopped before it was declared unconstitutional. Felix Frankfurter, an FDR adviser and a disciple of the great anti-monopolist Louis Brandeis, used that opportunity to build significant Brandeisian elements into New Deal structures. The New Deal social contract thus ended up being a somewhat incoherent mash-up of Brandeis’s and Berle’s ideas. On the one hand, antitrust did get a major focus; on the other, corporations were expected to play a major role delivering basic public goods like health insurance and pensions. 
Lemann then turns to his major subject, the rise and fall of the Transaction Man. The New Deal order inspired furious resistance from the start. Conservative businessmen and ideologues argued for a return to 1920s policies and provided major funding for a new ideological project spearheaded by economists like Milton Friedman, who famously wrote an article titled “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Lemann focuses on a lesser-known economist named Michael Jensen, whose 1976 article “Theory of the Firm,” he writes, “prepared the ground for blowing up that [New Deal] social order.”
Jensen and his colleagues embodied that particular brand of jaw-droppingly stupid that only intelligent people can achieve. Only a few decades removed from a crisis of unregulated capitalism that had sparked the worst war in history and nearly destroyed the United States, they argued that all the careful New Deal regulations that had prevented financial crises for decades and underpinned the greatest economic boom in U.S. history should be burned to the ground. They were outraged by the lack of control shareholders had over the firms they supposedly owned, and argued for greater market discipline to remove this “principal-agent problem”—econ-speak for businesses spending too much on irrelevant luxuries like worker pay and investment instead of dividends and share buybacks. When that argument unleashed hell, they doubled down: “To Jensen the answer was clear: make the market for corporate control even more active, powerful, and all-encompassing,” Lemann writes.
The best part of the book is the connection Lemann draws between Washington policymaking and the on-the-ground effects of those decisions. There was much to criticize about the New Deal social contract—especially its relative blindness to racism—but it underpinned a functioning society that delivered a tolerable level of inequality and a decent standard of living to a critical mass of citizens. Lemann tells this story through the lens of a thriving close-knit neighborhood called Chicago Lawn. Despite how much of its culture “was intensely provincial and based on personal, family, and ethnic ties,” he writes, Chicago Lawn “worked because it was connected to the big organizations that dominated American culture.” In other words, it was a functioning democratic political economy.
Then came the 1980s. Lemann paints a visceral picture of what it was like at street level as Wall Street buccaneers were freed from the chains of regulation and proceeded to tear up the New Deal social contract. Cities hemorrhaged population and tax revenue as their factories were shipped overseas. Whole businesses were eviscerated or even destroyed by huge debt loads from hostile takeovers. Jobs vanished by the hundreds of thousands. 
And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. Neighborhoods drowned under waves of foreclosures and crime as far-off financial derivatives imploded. Car dealerships that had sheltered under the General Motors umbrella for decades were abruptly cut loose. Bewildered Chicago Lawn residents desperately mobilized to defend themselves, but with little success. “What they were struggling against was a set of conditions that had been made by faraway government officials—not one that had sprung up naturally,” Lemann writes.
Toward the end of the book, however, Lemann starts to run out of steam. He investigates a possible rising “Network Man” in the form of top Silicon Valley executives, who have largely maintained control over their companies instead of serving as a sort of esophagus for disgorging their companies’ bank accounts into the Wall Street maw. But they turn out to be, at bottom, the same combination of blinkered and predatory as the Transaction Men. Google and Facebook, for instance, have grown over the last few years by devouring virtually the entire online ad market, strangling the journalism industry as a result. And they directly employ far too few people to serve as the kind of broad social anchor that the car industry once did.
In his final chapter, Lemann argues for a return to “pluralism,” a “messy, contentious system that can’t be subordinated to one conception of the common good. It refuses to designate good guys and bad guys. It distributes, rather than concentrates, economic and political power.”
This is a peculiar conclusion for someone who has just finished Lemann’s book, which is full to bursting with profoundly bad people—men and women who knowingly harmed their fellow citizens by the millions for their own private profit. In his day, Roosevelt was not shy about lambasting rich people who “had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs,” as he put it in a 1936 speech in which he also declared, “We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”
If concentrated economic power is a bad thing, then the corporate form is simply a poor basis for a truly strong and equal society. Placing it as one of the social foundation stones makes its workers dependent on the unreliable goodwill and business acumen of management on the one hand and the broader marketplace on the other. All it takes is a few ruthless Transaction Men to undermine the entire corporate social model by outcompeting the more generous businesses. And even at the high tide of the New Deal, far too many people were left out, especially African Americans.
Lemann writes that in the 1940s the United States “chose not to become a full-dress welfare state on the European model.” But there is actually great variation among the European welfare states. States like Germany and Switzerland went much farther on the corporatist road than the U.S. ever did, but they do considerably worse on metrics like inequality, poverty, and political polarization than the Nordic social democracies, the real welfare kings. 
Conversely, for how threadbare it is, the U.S. welfare state still delivers a great deal of vital income to the American people. The analyst Matt Bruenig recently calculated that American welfare eliminates two-thirds of the “poverty gap,” which is how far families are below the poverty line before government transfers are factored in. (This happens mainly through Social Security.) Imagine how much worse this country would be without those programs! And though it proved rather easy for Wall Street pirates to torch the New Deal corporatist social model without many people noticing, attempts to cut welfare are typically very obvious, and hence unpopular.
Still, Lemann’s book is more than worth the price of admission for the perceptive history and excellent writing. It’s a splendid and beautifully written illustration of the tremendous importance public policy has for the daily lives of ordinary people.
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at the Week. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the New Republic, and the Nation. He was an editor at the Washington Monthly from 2012 to 2014.

Biden Rewrites History 

of Supporting 2005 

BANKSTERS' 

Bankruptcy Bill

|
Posted: Mar 15, 2020 10:10 PM
Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Former Vice President Joe Biden was caught in a massive lie on the debate stage Sunday night, by his last-standing opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT). Biden claimed that he had no hand in the 2005 bankruptcy bill, when called out by Sen. Sanders:
“This is a little bit about leadership as well. Joe talked about bankruptcy, Joe, you helped write that bankruptcy bill,” Sen. Sanders said.


“This is a kinda circular logic.” — @BernieSanders to @JoeBiden on the Bankruptcy Bill.#DemDebate

Although Biden denies support of the bill, the evidence does not support his claim. Passed in 2005 by a bipartisan majority, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention And Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) altered the US Bankruptcy code, and made it more difficult to file for bankruptcy. The BAPCPA increased the threshold for bankruptcy in hopes of cutting fraud and abuse. The bill receives criticism from the far-left, including Sens. Sanders and Warren, who both claim that BAPCPA puts credit companies before consumers. Biden not only supported the bill, but sponsored it alongside GOP colleagues.


Did Biden seriously just say he didn't help write the bankruptcy bill?



the puzzling thing is that Biden is just pretending he wasn't a major champion of the bankruptcy bill, whereas Sanders has at least acknowledged this dynamic on gunshttps://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1239354672122662912 


Biden’s denial of supporting BAPCPA is yet another example of the former Vice President running away from his record, in order to appease progressive voters.