Elizabeth Warren may or may not be among Dems seeking that party’s nomination in 2020, but just in case, the Boston Globe is digging deep to try and put down one point of controversy surrounding the senator from Massachusetts:
An exhaustive review bolsters Elizabeth Warren’s assertion that her claim to Native American heritage did not help her win academic jobs, even though there is evidence Harvard took advantage of it after she was hired. https://t.co/W8qidxo7RJ pic.twitter.com/ol3mfFXo0c
— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) September 2, 2018
And others in the MSM ran with it:
Harvard University didn't consider Elizabeth Warren as Native American when hiring her as a law professor in the 1990s https://t.co/crfOQ6nSiF pic.twitter.com/DXy4Kz8Tke
— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 2, 2018
Harvard University's decision to hire Elizabeth Warren as a law professor in the 1990s was not based on any assertion that she has Native American heritage, according to a report by the Boston Globe. https://t.co/lOahttMgbi pic.twitter.com/GJ0MObUE79
— ABC News (@ABC) September 3, 2018
#ICYMI – Report says Harvard did not consider Elizabeth Warren as Native American when it hired her as a law professor https://t.co/5f7sDjce4p pic.twitter.com/qXSVurrNgv
— National Post (@nationalpost) September 3, 2018
Interesting how that’s reported:
That doesn't change the fact that she lied. https://t.co/7n8GtMZ2Z9
— BT (@back_ttys) September 2, 2018
Recommended
They are basically admitting that she lied but saying it doesn't matter because there's no evidence her lies helped her.
Clown World. https://t.co/jR1uiZGwtc
— Media Critic (@mediacritizer) September 3, 2018
The question has been whether Warren’s claim is true or not, but now the goal posts have been moved to “did making the claim help her get jobs?”
We have now reached the "ok yes she lied but it's not really that big of a deal" phase https://t.co/OI3bmDH9XA
— Tide Pod Bootlegger learning to code (@jsmith6919) September 2, 2018
Where will the goal posts be moved to next?
Common sense suggests that if there were nothing to be gained, she wouldn't have lied.
Unless she's just a compulsive liar, of course. You may have a point after all.
— UBIK (@SapientHetero) September 2, 2018
If it wasn't a benefit, why would she lie about it? https://t.co/3rx2WU4MPV
— Quotron (@Quotron_) September 2, 2018
Either she has Native American heritage or she doesn't. Either she lied or she didn't.
Nonetheless, we all know the media would ruin the career of any Republican who tried pulling this BS. https://t.co/wssFUOlJ1o
— Joseph A. Wulfsohn (@JosephWulfsohn) September 2, 2018
Imagine for a second the media twisting itself in knots to excuse a conservative who pretended to be a minority. https://t.co/gbWaeKuJpq
— Dan Ornelas (@DanielMOrnelas) September 2, 2018
"No, but it’s complicated" is code for "yeah, pretty much" https://t.co/K3r2hKNSGA
— Gristle McThornbody (@DadLibertarian) September 2, 2018
What's the difference between :no but its complicated" and "yes"? https://t.co/WZn7QPJd2Y
— Small Gov Lizard (@smallgovlizard) September 2, 2018
Liberal benefitted from lying= "it's complicated"
Loved your editorial railing against Trump calling you an enemy of the people. https://t.co/iqs15ipAik
— Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) September 2, 2018
Does the media have a tendency to run cover for Democrats? It’s not complicated.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member