WSJ writer slams Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, says it looks like Dem parody bill

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel issued a blistering critique of the proposed Green New Deal, saying that the proposal reads like a parody of the Democratic Party done by Republicans.
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” Strassel wrote on Twitter. “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”
The Green New Deal, pushed by freshman New York Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, attempts to radically transform the country, including rendering air travel obsolete, move the U.S. to rely completely on renewable energy with net-zero emissions, and guarantee economic security even for people who are “unwilling” to work.
OCASIO-CORTEZ CONTRADICTS HERSELF ON ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN MASSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED 'GREEN NEW DEAL'
But the sweeping proposal was hit with mockery once the details were unveiled on Thursday, with many pointing out how unrealistic the suggestions are.
Strassel pointed out that in order to live up to the proposal’s promise of 100 percent of renewable energy, a space as big as the entire state of California would have to be dedicated solely for the facilities, wind turbines, and solar panels.
The proposal’s suggestion of putting charging stations “everywhere,” upgrading or replacing “every building” and developing high-speed railway across every state may also hit a wall due to permitting laws.
FULL TEXT: GREEN NEW DEAL FAQ CALLS FOR ABOLISHING 'FARTING COWS' AND 'AIRPLANES' ASAP
Strassel notes that the Green New Deal is far from just a proposal to curb emissions and create more environmental regulations – it’s also about implementing radical left-wing measures.
“Somehow, government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are also ‘required’ for a clean economy,” the writer wrote. “I would love to understand this logic. (And imagine what wages will need to be to pay for billion-dollar-per-kilowatt electricity).”
But even those pushing for the document aren’t sure it can actually be achieved within 10 years. In a now-deleted FAQ page on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, the document explains that it’s calling for an elimination of greenhouse gas emissions rather than an immediate ban on fossil fuels because "we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."
“Planes run on fossil fuel. No fossil fuel, no visits to granny. Cows produce methane, why alarmists want to get rid of livestock,” Stressel wrote. “She can't do it ‘fully’ in 10 years, but AOC is coming after your air miles and bacon. This is honesty (sp) about how Democrats would micromanage private life.”
Lastly, the Green New Deal, which doesn’t exactly reveal how it will be funded, except for the suggestion that the Federal Reserve could step in and extend credit.
“And how to pay for mass trillions in cost? Don't worry! Federal Reserve will just ‘extend credit’ and ‘new public banks can be created to extend credit too,’” the writer tweeted. “Because, you know, like, money is just paper, and how hard can it be to make some more of the stuff, right? Right?”

Judge grills Mueller team on claim Manafort lied; prosecutors say issue's 'at heart' of Russia probe

A federal judge grilled Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team earlier this week on its claims that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators, according to a newly released, partially redacted court transcript released Thursday.
Manafort, who avoided a second trial in Washington, D.C., last year by agreeing to cooperate with investigators, allegedly lied to prosecutors about five separate topics, including Manafort’s contact with administration officials; information “pertinent to another Department of Justice investigation,” and a $125,000 wire transfer to a firm working for Manafort.
But at the closed-door hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson repeatedly and bluntly pressed prosecutors to explain why Manafort's misstatements, including some that he corrected voluntarily, should affect his upcoming sentencing.
The judge, who is also handling the ongoing criminal case against Trump associate Roger Stone, openly wondered whether prosecutors had bombarded Manafort with a series of difficult and irrelevant questions during the roughly 50 hours of interviews that followed his plea deal.
"Putting aside whether it has to be established and whether we have to establish all the elements of [a criminal false statements statute], why is this important?" Jackson asked prosecutors, referring to the their claim that Manafort misled authorities about the nature of the $125,000 wire transfer.

Kevin Downing, attorney for Paul Manafort leaves Federal District Court after a court hearing for Manafort in Washington, Friday, Jan. 25, 2019. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has scheduled a sealed proceeding to determine whether the former Trump campaign chairman intentionally lied to investigators. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Manafort has denied intentionally misleading Mueller's team and said he is under stress and physically ill. The former Trump campaign chairman claimed variously that the money was owed to him as a loan repayment, income and reimbursement.
The funds were sent in 2017 through a political action committee that spent millions to help Trump's candidacy.
"I mean, basically what you're saying is, you were just asking about something and it turned -- it snowballed into a series of false statements," Jackson said. "But was there something about his -- if I agree with you that he was lying about that, that was material to what you were doing? What was the importance of asking him about the payment in the first place?"
Jackson later told Manafort's lawyers she wasn't entirely convinced by their argument that his "succession of inconsistent explanations" could be chalked up to confusion caused by accounting practices, adding that "there's some aspects of the evidence I'm going to need to re-review."
At the hearing, prosecutors maintained that Manafort also lied about his interactions with Russian-Ukrainian political consultant Konstantin Kilimnik, who has ties to Russian intelligence. Prosecutors said Manafort made false statements about sharing polling data during the 2016 presidential election with Kilimnik.
Top Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann told Jackson that Manafort's connections to Kilimnik "goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the Special Counsel's Office is investigating. ... In [August] 2016 there is an in-person meeting with someone who ... is understood by the FBI, assessed to be -- have a relationship with Russian intelligence."
Jackson acknowledged that Manafort, after pleading guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik, offered an "exculpatory version of Kilimnik's state of mind" that "isn't necessarily consistent with what one would call full and forthright cooperation."
But, she added, Manafort quickly corrected some of his statements on the matter, undercutting prosecutors' claims that Manafort had acted intentionally to mislead them.
FLASHBACK: MANAFORT JUDGE SAYS MUELLER PROSECUTOR NEEDS TO STOP CRYING IN COURT
"Given [Manafort's] correction after consultation with counsel, why would this be something that we would characterize as the crime of making an intentionally false statement to the FBI, or even just a law of significance for acceptance of responsibility in sentencing purposes?" Jackson asked.

FILE - In this May 23, 2018, photo, Paul Manafort, Presiden Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves Federal District Court after a hearing in Washington. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

After Weissman underscored the extraordinary nature of Manafort's in-person meeting with Kilimnik, Jackson again said it was unclear why that would be a focus of Mueller's inquiry.
"So, I'm trying to figure out what the importance is of his ongoing work for a potential candidate in the Ukraine at that time is, and the importance of any lies about that, or lies about Kilimnik's knowledge about that," Jackson said.
Although much of Weissman's response is redacted, Jackson said she found his response "helpful" -- but the judge went on to question prosecutors further, after the defense team slammed the government's theories about the relevance of Manafort's shifting statements on Kilimnik as mere "conjecture."
"So, I don't think the Court needs to reach that issue, and I don't know that we've presented evidence on the -- that issue," Weissman says, after a partially redacted question from Jackson.
That reply drew a curt response from the judge.
"You didn't. So you just don't want me to think about it, that's okay," Jackson said, prompting Weissman to quickly embark on a longer explanation.
Again, at the end of his partially redacted reply, Jackson sounded a note of overt doubt as to the relevance of Manafort's alleged misrepresentation.
"So, this is an important falsehood because it was false?" Jackson asked. "Or is there some larger reason why this is important?"
Toward the end of the proceeding, Jackson took particular umbrage at prosecutors' contention that Manafort had lied about his contacts with the Trump administration.
"And of all of them, this is the one where I have the most difficulty figuring out where the real contradiction is of moment to the investigation," Jackson said.
Manafort's "outreach appears to have been two people outside the administration who themselves would have contacts within," Jackson said. "So, again, I want you to point to the specific statement in a 302 [FBI witness report] or a grand jury statement that is the precise question and answer you think I should denote as false. And, you know, it does seem to be that there are indications that he may have bragged that he still had sway or offered to assist people or to lobby. But do we have direct evidence of contacts that contradict a denial of a contact?"

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has aggressively pursued criminal charges against several former top Trump aides, but none of the charges have involved criminal collusion with Russia. (AP)

At that point, a member of Mueller's team replied that Manafort had lied by denying having any direct or "indirect" contacts with the administration -- and that the "indirect" statement was a lie.
But the prosecutor, Greg Andres, began his response by acknowledging the judge's critical tone.
"Given that you have issues with it, I drew the short straw," Andres said.
The Mueller deputy is no stranger to harsh criticisms from the bench. Last August, during Manafort's first trial in Virginia, Judge T.S. Ellis accused Andres of crying.
“I understand how frustrated you are. In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now,” Ellis said. (When Andres denied Ellis’ claim, the judge said, “Well, they’re watery.”)
Manafort's sentencing on two felony charges related to his Ukrainian lobbying is set for March, when Jackson will determine whether his punishment should be affected by his alleged false statements. Manafort faces up to ten years in prison in the separate case in Virginia, where he was convicted on tax and fraud charges.
Before adjourning, Jackson said she appreciated Manafort's attendance, having denied his attempt to skip the hearing because of logistical concerns and what he says are health challenges.
"I believe it was very helpful, very useful and very important for you to have been here, Mr. Manafort," Jackson said. "I know that we've had hearings where counsel sought to minimize the burden on you and not have you be here, but this is about you, it's not about them. And I think it's very important that they have you available to ask questions to."
Earlier this month, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said he expects the Mueller probe to produce its final report "within a month."

Ocasio-Cortez contradicts herself on role of government in massive and unprecedented 'Green New Deal'

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who announced a sweeping "Green New Deal" on Thursday that promises to render air travel obsolete, get rid of flatulent cows and ensure economic security for everyone in less than a decade, seemingly contradicted herself in a span of twelve hours on the nature of the government's role in the massive undertaking.
NPR host Steve Inskeep asked Ocasio-Cortez Thursday morning about concerns from conservatives that the 29-year-old former bartender's proposal involves an unconstitutional government overreach, as well as the unsustainable and dangerous elimination of huge swaths of the American economy.
"One reason that people who are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention, which they just don’t like," Inskeep asked. "Are you prepared to put on that table that, 'Yes actually they’re right, what this requires is massive government intervention?'"
Ocasio-Cortez responded: "It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that. Why? Because we have tried their approach for 40 years. For 40 years we have tried to let the private sector take care of this. They said, 'We got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.' Except for the fact that there’s a little thing in economics called externalities. And what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river and they don’t have to pay, but taxpayers have to pay."
But later in the day, in an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Ocasio-Cortez blamed conservatives for suggesting that she wanted a massive government program.
"I think one way that the right does try to mischaracterize, uh, what we're doing as though it's, like, some kind of massive government takeover," Ocasio-Cortez told Todd. "Obviously, it's not that, because what we're trying to do is release the investments from the federal government to mobilize those resources across the country."
FULL TEXT: GREEN NEW DEAL FAQ CALLS FOR ABOLISHING 'FARTING COWS' AND 'AIRPLANES' ASAP
Ocasio-Cortez, who has warned that climate change may end the world in 12 years, went on to decline to call herself a capitalist.
"I don't say that," Ocasio-Cortez responded, when asked by Todd if she considers herself a capitalist. "I believe in a democratic economy, but -- but the but is there."
In what may be the most far-reaching proposal to ever be considered in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the "Green New Deal" hours earlier -- a government-led overhaul of virtually every aspect of American life that would guarantee a host of taxpayer-covered benefits for all and phase out fossil fuels.
Along the way, her office says the plan would aim to make air travel obsolete, upgrade or replace every building in America to ensure energy efficiency and give economic security even to those "unwilling" to work.
“Today is the day that we truly embark on a comprehensive agenda of economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” she said alongside Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other lawmakers outside the Capitol. “That’s what this agenda is all about.”
The plan, which calls for a massive package of big-government proposals including health care for all, quickly picked up the backing of major 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls including Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. -- who all co-sponsored the resolution.
“Our history is a testimony to the achievement of what some think is impossible — we must take bold action now,” Booker tweeted.

Cows may be eliminated by the Green New Deal announced Thursday. (iStock)

While the resolution itself would do very little because it is non-binding, it is the first time the policy proposal has been formally outlined in Congress. The resolution says “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” is an opportunity to tackle systemic injustices toward minority groups, create millions of high-wage jobs and “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
Its proposals include “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” job creation; infrastructure investment; guarantees of clean water, healthy food and sustainable environment; and a curiously undefined “access to nature.”

December 10, 2018 - Washington, DC, United States - Protesters seen holding placards during the Sunrise Movement protest inside the office of US Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to advocate that Democrats support the Green New Deal, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. (Credit Image: © Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire) (Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire)

Beyond those broad proposals, the plan and accompanying documents from Ocasio-Cortez include a range of far-fetched goals -- and drew swift scorn from Republicans and other critics. The Republican National Committee dubbed it a "socialist wish list" that would kill at least 1 million jobs and disrupt global trade -- while costing trillions.
The resolution, for instance, includes a proposal to “upgrade all existing buildings” in the country in order to achieve energy efficiency, safety, affordability, durability and comfort.
An accompanying FAQ, released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office and first obtained by NPR, goes even further, calling to "upgrade or replace every building in the US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency." A second similar FAQ on her website echoed some of those prescriptions though was later removed.
The resolution also backs the concept of high-speed rail as a proposal to reduce carbon emissions -- but the FAQ goes so far as to urge that development “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
It also promises “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
What constitutes economic security is not clear, but the plan does call for programs including a federal job guarantee, universal health care and "affordable, safe, and adequate housing."
The FAQ also notes that it has set a goal of net-zero, rather than zero, emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
As for how to pay for the Green New Deal?
"The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs," Ocasio-Cortez's FAQ states. "The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit."
The FAQ continues: "There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."
However, the push is likely to see resistance not only from Republicans but even some Democrats. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was asked about the plan to replace planes with high-speed rail and did not seem impressed.
“That would be pretty hard for Hawaii,” she laughed.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to dismiss the plan.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico on Wednesday. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”
Even aside from the Green New Deal, conservative commentators have argued that most proposed solutions to global warming would do more harm than good, and also have accused climate activists of crying wolf. In 2006, a NASA scientist and leading global warming researcher declared that the world had only 10 years to avert a climate catastrophe -- a deadline that has come and gone.

Weird Democrat Cartoons

Washington Post columnist compares Nancy Pelosi’s contemptuous clap to 'Arrested Development' character

Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse described House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s clap during President Trump’s State of the Union speech as “Lucille Bluth-like in its contemptuousness.” (20th Century Fox/Doug Mills/The New York Times via AP)

A Washington Post columnist on Wednesday wrote in a column that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's contemptuous clap during President Trump' State of the Union was "Lucille Bluth-like."
Bluth is the matriarchal character in the former TV series "Arrested Development." Bluth's character, played by, Jessica Walter, is unloving and, as The New York Times put it, lobs "80-proof Molotov cocktails of sarcasm" during the show.
The House Speaker was relatively expressionless during Trump’s nearly 90-minute speech. But an image of the peculiar way she applauded when Trump mentioned bipartisanship quickly made the rounds on social media.
Monica Hesse, the columnist, wrote, "The lasting visual image can only be described as . . . withering? Pitying? Lucille Bluth-like in its contemptuousness?" She added: "[T]his was a derogatory clap, make no mistake. This was mockery wearing a half-baked costume of politeness."
BIZARRE STATE OF THE UNION 'FACT CHECKS' FALL FLAT, AS MEDIA ACCUSED OF NITPICKING
Hesse likened Pelosi’s supposed mockery of Trump to a "parent applauding a kindergartner for tying his shoes when the only goal is to quickly scoot him out the door."
Hesse’s piece also mentioned comedian Patton Oswalt, who evidently shares her view of the image, having written on twitter after Trump’s speech: "Congrats to @SpeakerPelosi for inventing the “f--- you” clap. #sotu."

Photo of Joy Behar dressed as ‘beautiful African woman’ resurfaces

A long forgotten video clip from ABC's "The View" resurfaced on Wednesday that showed co-host Joy Behar trying to explain a Halloween costume from when she was younger.
The clip was shared by The Wrap media editor Jon Levine. Behar was seen discussing a New York Times op-ed about the resurgence of curly hair during the show in 2016. Behar showed her colleagues and the audience a picture of herself with curly hair when she was 29 years old.
The co-hosts appeared surprised by her drastically different look. Raven-Symoné, a former co-host, asked, "Joy, are you black?"
"I was so cute," Behar said.
"Joy... are you my auntie, Joy?" Raven-Symoné joked.
Behar explained that the picture was taken at a Halloween party where she dressed up as a "beautiful African woman" and stressed that it was her actual hair.
"Did you have tanning lotion on, Joy?" Raven-Symoné asked.
KIMMEL, FALLON HAVE HISTORIES OF USING BLACKFACE FOR COMEDY
Behar responded by saying she wore makeup "that was a little bit darker than my skin."
The video resurfaced as Democrats in Virginia face intense scrutiny over their use of blackface decades ago. On Friday, Governor Ralph Northam offered an apology after a photograph emerged on his medical school yearbook page that featured a man in blackface and another in a KKK robe. He reversed course the next day, claiming he wasn’t in that photo but did admit to wearing blackface when dressing up as Michael Jackson for a costume contest.
Democratic Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who had previously called on Northam to resign, released a statement Wednesday that he also wore blackface in college.
ABC News has not responded for comment.

Newt Gingrich: Trump's State of the Union changed history on Tuesday night – Here's what Pelosi must've felt

Every once in a while a speech is so effective and powerful it changes the trajectory of history.
President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address was that kind of speech.
If you have not seen it, you should watch it online. Reading it will only convey 10 percent of its power. It was the interaction of the president with the members of Congress and the audience in the galleries that was so compelling.
The emotions of Tuesday night matched anything President Reagan achieved in his addresses to Congress. From the early mentions of people in the gallery – which were guaranteed to get even the Democrats to stand and applaud – to spontaneously singing "Happy Birthday" to a Holocaust and 2018 synagogue shooting survivor to chanting “USA! USA!,” the total performance and interaction with the members of Congress was vastly more powerful than the words on paper.
Furthermore, the delivery was presidential. The president interacted with the Democrats in a positive and cheerful way, which bodes well for bipartisan legislative initiatives for the rest of this year. By one count, the president was interrupted 98 times with applause. Both the left-wing Democrats and the never Trump Republicans found themselves standing and applauding again and again.
As a former Speaker of the House who had to stand and applaud President Bill Clinton when he said, “The era of big government is over,” I knew exactly what was going on in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mind. She had to sit and be pleasant while her major opponent got her own party to repeatedly stand with enthusiastic applause. She had to listen politely to the person she spends every day attacking. The vice president is always a happy and a solid cheerleader. When I was Speaker, Al Gore would sit next to me and enthusiastically applaud everything President Clinton said. Last night, Mike Pence was cheerfully standing and applauding as often as possible. Having the opposition party’s top cheerleader sit next to you just makes the Speaker’s job harder.
Speaker Pelosi at times could not help herself. She would conspicuously pick up the speech text and read it to find out how much longer she had to remain disciplined and pretend to be a good hostess (the president is the guest of the House). When even her most radical new members began standing and applauding, she must have experienced a bit of despair.
I knew the speech would become historic when, even before it ended, I saw a tweet from Jerry Falwell Jr. proclaiming, “Best State of the Union speech in my lifetime delivered by the best @POTUS since George Washington and it’s not even over yet! God bless @realDonaldTrump!”
Falwell, of course, was very enthusiastic about and grateful for President Trump’s commitment to protecting babies and his condemnation of the Democrats who believe in infanticide.
However, the Falwell judgment was reflected in a stunning CBS News poll. Of the people who watched the speech, 76 percent approved and only 24 percent disapproved. Those are probably the best numbers of President Trump’s career to date.
Clearly, there is a bias in asking “those who watched.” More Republicans watch a Republican president. More Democrats watch a Democratic president.
However, CBS found widespread approval for Trump’s State of the Union. Among independents, 82 percent approved. Democrats only gave 30 percent approval while Republicans (as might be expected) gave the speech 97 percent approval.
The 97 percent approval among Republicans, when combined with the 90-10 Trump over Kasich numbers from a recent Emerson College poll of Iowa voters, should end all serious talk of someone challenging him for the Republican nomination in 2020. He may have been an outsider in 2016, but today President Trump is the Republican Party (a fact which makes his relationship with some senators a little difficult).
This speech was designed to move toward unity and bipartisanship – and 56 percent of the viewers thought it will “do more to unite the country”.
Beyond tone, the CBS poll had very good news for President Trump on his issue positions.
On immigration, speech watchers agreed with Trump by 72 percent to 28 percent.
On American troops and the Middle East strategy, speech watchers were with Trump by 74 percent to 26 percent.
An amazing 71 percent of the speech-watchers agreed with the president that there was a crisis on the southern border.
When the president explained the upcoming second meeting with Kim Jong Un, 78 percent of the watchers thought it was a good idea. Even 43 percent of the Democrats liked the idea of the meeting.
The president entered the House chamber embattled with a divided country and bitter partisanship. He left it with a lot more humor and happiness. The ice may be breaking on bitter partisanship.
This was a speech that changed the trajectory of history.
Now, we will see if the president and the Congress can build on that new trajectory of choosing greatness, focusing on the nation, and finding ways to compromise for the betterment of our country and all Americans.

Warren apologizes for Native American claim, signals there may be other documents out there

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Wednesday was once again forced to apologize for claiming Native American ancestry on a 1986 registration card for the Texas state bar, and left the door open that there may be more documents out there with a similar claim.
The controversy appears to be difficult for the senator to put behind her. She had been planning to formally launch her presidential campaign on Saturday.  A reporter on Wednesday asked if she would drop out of the race and she responded, "Thank you."
KAYLEIGH McENANY SAYS INSTAGRAM REMOVED HER WARREN POST
Fox News' Shepard Smith called Warren's actions "cultural appropriation." A Boston Globe columnist wrote flatly: With latest revelation, Elizabeth Warren can't beat Donald Trump.
Questions about Warren’s heritage date to at least 2012, when her Republican opponent seized on the issue during her first Senate campaign to wrongly argue she identified as a Native American to advance her career. President Donald Trump frequently deploys a racial slur to criticize Warren.
Politico reported that Warren, who apologized last Friday to the Cherokee Nation for revealing the results of a DNA test last autumn that showed just a trace amount of Native American lineage, was asked if there are any other documents where she claimed the ancestry.
"So all I know is during this time period, this is consistent with what I did because it was based on my understanding from my family's stories," she said. "But family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship."
The registration card was first reported by The Washington Post. Fox News has verified the document, which marks the first known instance of Warren claiming Native American ancestry on an official document.
Fox News reached out to Warren’s office early Thursday about the potential for more documents and did not get an immediate response.
Hillary Chabot, a reporter at The Boston Herald, wrote that the senator is looking to distance herself from the scandal, but brought up the wealth issue as another potential headache for Warren.
"Warren has worked hard to craft a narrative as a scrappy Dust Bowl native ready to take down vast corporations and billionaires like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. But she usually fails to mention her own vast wealth," she wrote, pointing out that Warren and her husband are worth as much as $11 million.
Paulette Jordan, a former Democratic state representative in Idaho and a member of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, told The Associated Press, “It’s not exactly how you’d want to enter the arena” as a presidential candidate.
WARREN WORTH MILLIONS
She apologized in private last week to the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation for “causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that resulted,” said tribal spokeswoman Julie Hubbard.
“I am not a tribal citizen. Tribes, and only tribes, determine citizenship,” Warren said, adding, “I have apologized for not being more sensitive to that distinction. It’s an important distinction.”