Elizabeth Warren fired back at Mark Zuckerberg on Twitter Tuesday morning, after the Facebook founder and CEO said it would "suck" if his company had to fight her future administration's plans to break up certain tech giants.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told voters Sunday that President Trump might be unable to finish his term, firing back at him for the first time since his reelection campaign attacked her rollout.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren officially launched her 2020 presidential campaign Saturday at a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, using the backdrop of Everett Mills -- the site of a historic 1912 labor strike led by women and immigrants -- to issue a call to action against wealthy power brokers who "have been waging class warfare against hardworking people for decades."
Elizabeth Warren is going all-in against President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Department of Labor. The Massachusetts senator sent a scathing, 28-page letter detailing questions for Andy Puzder—the CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's parent company, CKE Restaurants—whom Trump selected for the post. Warren is a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, which is scheduled to hold Puzder's confirmation hearing Thursday morning.
Political insiders used to scoff at the idea that Hillary Clinton would choose Elizabeth Warren for her running mate. But over the past few weeks, there’s been increasing chatter and speculation that it’s a real possibility.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday he and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, had reached a provisional agreement on terms of a cessation of hostilities in Syria and the sides were closer to a ceasefire than ever before.
Elizabeth Warren captivated the political world for a good portion of 2015 with will-she-or-won’t-she suspense over a potential presidential run. By June, even her most ardent supporters conceded she was out, and much of the spotlight trained on the freshman Massachusetts senator shifted as the White House race heated up without her.
In my previous column, I took issue with liberals who take a “purist” view of financial regulation—who believe it’s wrong to appoint regulators or elect lawmakers who take campaign contributions from the financial industry, or who’ve worked in that industry in the past, or who won’t pledge never to work for it in the future. The idea is to keep regulation free of corrupting influence, but in fact their position makes it less likely that we regulate the industry well. I wrote about three of the reasons in my last column: If you worry too much about purity, you lose the inside knowledge of the industry that can make regulators more effective, as well as a personal connection with firms that can actually increase the likelihood they’ll comply with the rules.