ELDER PATRIOT – People watching Elizabeth Warren attack President Trump’s nominee to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, had to be impressed with her thoroughly blistering assault on his failure to list a stock purchase on his financial disclosure forms.

Everyone is sick of the special niche that congress has carved out for itself that allows its members the freedom to conduct stock trades on insider information – including when they know there’s pending legislation that will directly affect a stock’s value – even as it remains an offense that can carry imprisonment for everyone else.

But, as offensive as the practice is, when a sitting Senator charges anyone with insider trading they should be 100% certain of their facts.  Warren wasn’t.

Warren: So, let’s just be clear. This is not just a stockbroker — someone you pay to handle the paperwork. This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them buy and sell.

Price: Not true.

Warren: So, when you found out that…

Price: It’s not true Senator.

Warren: What? Because you decide not to tell them? Wink, wink. Nod, nod. And we’re all just supposed to believe that?

Price: It’s what members of this committee. It’s the manner in which members of this committee . . .

Warren: I’m not one of them.

Price’s denial will have to stand the test of time but his reputation, and by extension the reputation of the entire Congress, has been further denigrated by Senator Warren.

Not that Warren doesn’t deserve being denigrated for her failure to disclose a loan because she believed it to be politically troubling. 

The Washington Free Beacon discovered that Warren skirted congressional ethics laws by failing to include a $1.3 million line of credit from Bank of America against her Cambridge, Massachusetts, home on financial disclosure forms.

Warren told the Washington Post after she cavalierly besmirched the reputation of Tom Price that incomplete financial disclosures from cabinet nominees put the country at risk:

“It is critical that each nominee follows basic ethics rules to ensure that they will act for the benefit of all the American people.

“Potentially damaging information that may undermine fitness to serve and that nominees with complex financial histories need to be forthcoming and transparent.”

So while Price denied her allegations and she offered no evidence that they were true we are left wondering why Warren violated the STOCK Act, which was signed into law in 2012, and mandated that all members of Congress disclose details of any mortgages on their personal residences in their annual filings.

Warren earned the nickname Pocahontas because she lied about having Native American bloodlines in order to snag a professorship at Harvard.

The Massachusetts Senator later received a zero-interest loan from Harvard that she used to buy her $1.3 million home.   In her 2012 financial disclosure she declared that she doesn’t own stocks, only mutual funds, meaning she is as guilty – or not guilt – for the same “failure to disclose” as Tom Price.

Pocahontas also declared herself to be the ‘intellectual mother’ of the Occupy movement until Bank of America pressured her to cease and desist.  That probably explains why she endorsed “Big Bank Favorite” Hillary despite being ideologically closer to Bernie Sanders and having a well-publicized hatred for Clinton.

Warren watchers should find it particularly troublesome that when it came to supporting Hillary Clinton she never asked Hillary to address Americans’ concerns that, “Potentially damaging information that may undermine fitness to serve and that nominees with complex financial histories need to be forthcoming and transparent.”

Elizabeth Warren is a two-faced, duplicitous, lying, politician who has been gaming the system since well before she ever entered the political arena.  In other words, she’s a Democrat.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’