Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 07, 2019

The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren, documents show, contradicting the Democratic presidential candidate's repeated claims that she was asked not to return to teaching after a single year because she was "visibly pregnant."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More bull manure from the lying dirtbags at The Free (LOL!) Beacon...and Bozo!

#1 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-10-07 07:44 PM | Reply

Fauxcahontas strikes again.

#2 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-07 07:49 PM | Reply

This is good investigative journalism.

No wonder Dad is angry about it.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-07 08:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If Trump did it, would that be an impeachable offense?

What would Hillary say?

#4 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-07 08:17 PM | Reply

"What would Hillary say?
#4 | POSTED BY RAY"

I think we will get to find out soon. Clear Biden is done - I said by Halloween, Thanksgiving at the latest and that looks accurate still given his declining poll numbers. I think the next debate is what does him him.

For Pocahontas, these lies are just one more nail in her coffin. She is a liar, an opportunist and has accomplished nothing.

So, I really don't think the Dems have a plan B other than Hillary entering - and that will have predictable results.

#5 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 08:29 PM | Reply

FTA:
2 day a week contract approved April 27
Resignation accepted June 16

Those who aren't mindless Trump cultists might ask:
was 2 days a week a constructive dismissal and if not, what happened between April and June.

But cultists will gobble mushroom knobs when told demanding foriegn governments investigate rivals isn't illegal, after trampy lied about his crimes multiple times.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2019-10-07 08:38 PM | Reply

"was 2 days a week a constructive dismissal and if not, what happened between April and June.
#6 | POSTED BY BORED "

She already told you in the available video - she was on an educational waiver so needed to take additional classes - at which point she decided this job was not for her. Maybe the kids where racists against Native Americans....we don't know, but we do know that she took classes and then dropped out of the job.

#7 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 08:42 PM | Reply

The GOP has no standing to complain of lies.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-10-07 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The GOP has no standing to complain of lies.
#8 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR "

By that standard, neither do the Dems. Glad that we can finally have the Left stop spouting off about Trump's lies now that you agree.

#9 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 09:49 PM | Reply

Do right-wingers actually think they're going to put the reason, if it was as Warren says, in the record?
if they pressured her, and she resigned, there sure as hell wouldn't be any record of it. That would be stupid. They'd also put out a nice notification, being winners over the whole thing. CYA.

A more useful pursuit of information would the answer to was she pregnant at the time? How far along was she? Had any other female teachers that had become pregnant resign or had their job terminated? Is there any contemporaneous information/witnesses to support her claim?

That would be actual reporting. Something this article just isn't.

But honestly, these days Trumps set the bar so low this doesn't even register, so this story, true or false, just doesn't matter.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 09:54 PM | Reply

"A more useful pursuit of information would the answer to was she pregnant at the time? How far along was she? Had any other female teachers that had become pregnant resign or had their job terminated? Is there any contemporaneous information/witnesses to support her claim?"

No - that is not actual reporting - that is accepting Warren's lies as a fact and then trying to support them. The burden to proving her statement true should fall on Warren. The problem for her is that her prior statements contradict her story AND she WAS OFFERED AN EXTENSION. Those are the FACTS - anything else is you trying to play mindreader on "evil intents".

So, if her story shifts to "I was offered an extension but felt pressured" - you will accept her statement as the gospel truth and we both know it. But, that means that you accept her version of the story despite it being contradicted by her own prior statements AND forces you to play mind reader on intent - something the Dems are not qualified to do. Also, you are calling everyone else a liar as her story is not backed up by anyone except Warren post-2008. It is almost like the Kavanaugh hearing again.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 10:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You know I was actually writing back a considered response, then it dawned on me that you don't deserve it, and that you're a liar and an idiot if you think what you just posted is worth a hand of warm spit.

#12 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yav,

If it was just the paperwork, yeah I see your point.

But the paperwork coupled with the interview that is also cited in the linked article....well, a pattern begins to emerge.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-07 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BTW - thanks for saying finding out answers to those questions would validate Warren's story.
I certainly didn't see it that way, but if you say so, then we're done.
Congratulations.

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 10:28 PM | Reply

By that standard, neither do the Dems. Glad that we can finally have the Left stop spouting off about Trump's lies now that you agree.

#9 | Posted by iragoldberg

Of course this idiot conveniently loses any sense of scale.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"BTW - thanks for saying finding out answers to those questions would validate Warren's story.
#14 | POSTED BY YAV"

In your mind it would because you are looking for anything that you think would support your assertion which requires you to manufacture 'evil intent' that flies in face of the fact that she WAS OFFERED AN EXTENSION. Leaving beside the fact that her pre-2008 self recounts a completely different story, you are attempting to prove that Warren's "mindset" was true.

However, we don't have the full story yet. She has yet to claim that she only felt 'pressured' - to date, your exact words are 100% contradicted - she said the principal gave the job to someone else despite the school offering her an extension. Unfortunately for lying Liz, people don't like their reputations dragged through the mud so you can gain some political advantage. And the school set the record straight. Now it is lying Liz's turn to finally tell the truth.

#16 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 10:41 PM | Reply

Jeff - by interview you mean the 2007 (12 years ago) interview? There is, as with all memory that is true, some shifting going on. Especially as times change and situations change. Details and motivations may be exposed when previously it may not be wise to do so. It may have been a mutually agreed upon exit. We really don't know, and claiming we do based on what's presented, or that Warren's a liar because of standards being applied to her that no one on the GOP side would stand for, is ridiculous IMHO.

From the interview 12 years ago, cited in the article:

Warren: So, I got my degree in speech pathology and audiology, which meant that I would be able to work with children who had head trauma and other kinds of brain injuries. And that's what I did.

Kreisler:For a while? I mean, you actually pursued that career?

Warren: I actually did. I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I'd married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an "emergency certificate," it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, "I don't think this is going to work out for me." I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home...

She doesn't go into any details on why it wasn't going to work out, or she's putting a positive spoon on things, or any number of other things could be possible. We just don't know. Hence my questions.

Could she be stretching the truth? Maybe so. But there isn't enough there to know for sure, so I'm not calling her a liar based on what I've read.

Especially when we have a CinC that lies right to your face and the people crying foul over this lap his lies up like manna from heaven.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 10:42 PM | Reply

your exact words are 100% contradicted

Oh dear god. Please delete yourself.

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 10:43 PM | Reply

"Of course this idiot conveniently loses any sense of scale.
#15 | POSTED BY JPW "

Oh, now I see. It is the scale of the lie that matters. Like when Schiff lies about meeting with the whistleblower or Lying Liz lies about being a minority to get a teaching job it does not matter - but if Trump lies about his crowd size, the world is ending. I see now.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 10:43 PM | Reply

"It may have been a mutually agreed upon exit. We really don't know, and claiming we do based on what's presented, or that Warren's a liar because of standards being applied to her that no one on the GOP side would stand for, is ridiculous IMHO."

Nope - the school has confirmed that they offered her an extension and were sad to see her leave. It was Warren's choice. Just admit she lied - you will actually save face that way. BTW, have you admitted Biden's "Soldier Story" was a lie yet? Did Hillary escape sniper fire? Curious minds want to know. Did Bill Clinton 'not have sex' with that woman because she only blew him?

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 10:46 PM | Reply

It's easy to fact check Trump's lies. He tells the same ones all the time.
November 16, 2018

Trump regularly makes 20 to 30 false claims in his rally speeches. But if you watched a network news segment, read an Associated Press article or glanced at the front page of the newspaper in the city that hosted him, you'd typically have no idea that he was so wholly inaccurate.

If a car salesman told you 36 untrue things in 75 minutes, that would probably be the first thing you told your friends about your trip to the dealership. It should have been the first thing we all told our readers about Trump's August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

This issue is so urgent because Trump is getting worse and worse. In 2017, he averaged three false claims per day. In 2018, it is about nine per day. In the month leading up to the midterms: a staggering 26 per day. By my count, he's now at 3,749 false claims since his inauguration. The Post, which tracks both false and misleading claims, has tallied up to 6,420.


www.washingtonpost.com

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-07 10:57 PM | Reply

Hey Warren didn't lie. She was joking!

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-07 11:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, Gal.

I think we can all agree on the fact that Trump lies. A lot. There is no disputing that. Too much evidence.

Right Ira?

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 11:00 PM | Reply

"Right Ira?
#23 | POSTED BY YAV"

Correct. Trump does lie, a lot. I don't deny that on partisan grounds. That is what is different.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-07 11:18 PM | Reply

"Trump does lie, a lot. I don't deny that on partisan grounds."

You just ignore it on partisan grounds.

Meanwhile, when a Dem lies, you're OUTRAGED!

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-07 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Warren didn't lie. She was joking!"

Henceforth known as The Jim Jordan Defense.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-07 11:41 PM | Reply

More bull manure from the lying dirtbags at The Free (LOL!) Beacon...and Bozo!
#1 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD

documents show,

This is far better "proof" ....

Than the "heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another" reporting that dominates the frontpage..

#27 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-07 11:55 PM | Reply

#17 Yav,

TBH, I really don't care about this one. She's certainly not the first pol to embellish or even lie about her past. I also don't know what she even gains politically by lying about something that was relatively minor that happened the year I was born.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-08 12:01 AM | Reply

"I also don't know what she even gains politically by lying about something that was relatively minor that happened the year I was born.
#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

I will answer that for you - because any politician that makes it to the point of considering themselves to be fit to be president of the United States is a massive narcissist that thinks that they are better than the unwashed masses they wish to rule over so lying to these people does not really matter - they don't deserve the truth.

Yes - this applies equally to the Dems and GOP. And this is what tends to separate the supporters of each party. I have no issue stating that the GOP is teeming with dirtbag, corrupt liars because the letter behind their name does not factor into my opinion of their statements or behavior. The Dems are the ones incapable of admitting that their politicians are deeply flawed humans as well. Hell, Ted Kennedy literally killed a girl and then tried to cover it up and the Dems just pretended like it didn't happen. Kennedy was a horrible human just like Newt is a horrible human (not being a killed aside). You can't get the same admission from the other side.

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 12:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I will answer that for you - because any politician that makes it to the point of considering themselves to be fit to be president of the United States is a massive narcissist that thinks that they are better than the unwashed masses they wish to rule over so lying to these people does not really matter - they don't deserve the truth.

"My great and unmatched wisdom."

"very stable genius" who is "like, really smart"

#30 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-08 07:08 AM | Reply

False equivalences are just one coin of the Trump age.
Its' how a narcissistic sociopath is excused and his behavior normalized by his followers.
Congrats Ira. You finally admitted what your party is all about.

We democrats know we have flawed candidates. We're all flawed. We admit it. We also step down. Too much. Good people do.

What you have is a party of liars, making fools of themselves on Sunday shows, lying, lying, lying to cover for the biggest liar we've ever seen occupy the Presidency.

And you say "they're the same."
No. They aren NOT. Not even close. not even in the same ballpark.

But you have to tell yourself that because even you, apparently, have a conscious.

"Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him (or her) for everything that goes wrong..."

#31 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 07:12 AM | Reply

But honestly, these days Trumps set the bar so low this doesn't even register she has a D after her name, so this story, true or false, just doesn't matter.
#10 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-07 09:54 PM

Fixed for possible clarification.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 07:43 AM | Reply

We democrats know we have flawed candidates. We're all flawed. We admit it. We also step down. Too much. Good people do. - #31 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 07:12 AM
Republican with pictures in blackface, steps down that very day.
shareblue.com
Democrat with pictures in blackface, continues right along on his merry way. www.nytimes.com
You're lying to yourself.

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 07:53 AM | Reply

I'm really enjoying the whataboutisms from the same people who accuse DR Rs of whataboutism.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-10-08 08:05 AM | Reply

Fixed for possible clarification.

#32 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No, he had it right.

The right has become so toxic it makes Flint's water look pure.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 08:34 AM | Reply

The right has become so toxic it makes Flint's water look pure. - #35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 08:34 AM
she has a D after her name, so this story, true or false, just doesn't matter

Do you even realize that you're supporting my argument?

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 08:40 AM | Reply

On topic, this is just stupid. A prime example of why identity politics is stupid.

Instead of just running on her record as an advocate for the middle class and consumers she had to try and be the victimized but stronger because of it woman.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 08:44 AM | Reply

No, I'm not "supporting your argument".

I was simply stating a fact. You guys have gotten so bad you think finding a single instance of your wrong doing in a Dem absolves you of your own sins.

Because I'm pretty sure I would have noticed you guys criticizing Trump for lying given the frequency with which he does it.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 08:46 AM | Reply

I was simply stating a fact. You guys have gotten so bad you think finding a single instance of your wrong doing in a Dem absolves you of your own sins.
Because I'm pretty sure I would have noticed you guys criticizing Trump for lying given the frequency with which he does it.
#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 08:46 AM

No, that would be whataboutism. What we have here is an inability to discuss the weakness of 1 Democrat candidate because people who agree with her politics continue attempting to deflect to the problems of a whole other political party. Even after it being pointed out again and again, the whataboutism and deflections continue.

#39 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 09:07 AM | Reply

I was referring to a context much broader than this single thread.

I suspect you know that and ignored it because you don't criticize Trump.

Because he has an R after his name.

Hack.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 09:10 AM | Reply

You were deflecting and obfuscating for Warren in this thread, where we are trying to discuss one of the options out of a dozen(?)which Democrats may choose as their nominee because of a broader context? Please do explain the broad context of how Trump factors in to the comparison of which Democratic candidate other Democrats are going to pull the lever for in the nomination process.

#41 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 09:17 AM | Reply

What's hilarious about the Right's new charge of "Whataboutism" is that this entire thread's premise is "What about! Warren!"

Mote.
Eye.
BEAM.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 09:22 AM | Reply

Read #37 then tell me who's deflecting.

I'm agreeing with those that are rightfully pointing out that righties have zero credibility to whine about lies.

Warren's lie is nothing compared to the webs Trump has spun.

So kindly GFY if you're going to keep pushing the false equivalency required to keep your faux outrage alive.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 09:24 AM | Reply

#42 I would say what's funnier is that they think they're making a substantive argument when they've let tens of thousands of Trump lies go unchallenged.

They whine incessantly about hypocrisy while being the biggest hypocrites in the electorate.

They must have the mental acuity of a six or seven year old. I can't figure out any other way a supposed adult can be so completely unaware of their own conduct.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 09:33 AM | Reply

this entire thread's premise is "What about! Warren!" - #42 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 09:22 AM
That's pure BS. Warren is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Her lies, her history, everything is absolutely pertinent for discussion.

Are you people actually claiming that no discussion can be had on which candidate for Dem nomination is the best choice to make because the republican candidate is so bad?
I expect that kind of idiocy from JPW, but you YAV have certainly seemed smarter than that.

#45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 09:46 AM | Reply

Clearly you don't know what "Whataboutism" even means.

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 09:58 AM | Reply

I'm not taking issue with Warren - I've said all I have to say about her. As a Democrat I'm always disappointed when someone falls short of the truth - but that's not a democrat/republican thing. It's being human. Good humans know that it happens, and things, over time, may expand and go beyond the truth. That's why we have a term "stretching the truth."

That's VASTLY different than what Trump does. It's way different than his myrmidons going out on TV and lying, lying, lying to support the biggest liar we've ever seen inhabit the WH.

What's frustrating is I can admit my disappointment when people let me down, and forgive them. But if they keep lying to me, don't show any remorse, then I cut them out of my life. I won't deal with them. I already gave you Trump's MO:

"Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him (or her) for everything that goes wrong..."

(which, btw, I'm surprised no one understood or said anything about)

In the case of Trump, no one trusts the word of the U.S. Our word means absolutely nothing now. Nothing. Ask the Kurds for the latest example.

So for anyone to compare or play "what about Warren!" and defend Trump is a bridge too far for me.

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:05 AM | Reply

Are you people actually claiming that no discussion can be had on which candidate for Dem nomination is the best choice to make because the republican candidate is so bad?
I expect that kind of idiocy from JPW, but you YAV have certainly seemed smarter than that.

#45 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No idiot, we're saying your pearl clutching is as transparent as your supposed morals.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 10:08 AM | Reply

In the case of Trump, no one trusts the word of the U.S. Our word means absolutely nothing now. Nothing. Ask the Kurds for the latest example.
So for anyone to compare or play "what about Warren!" and defend Trump is a bridge too far for me.
#47 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:05 AM

But why bring Trump into the discussion if not to deflect or provide cover for Warren's falsehood? There are several political competitors the Warren that you can compare her to without having to Whataboutism to Trump. Does Warren lying to the public make her less electable that Sander's health condition makes him? Do we just sweep aside the deception and concentrate on policy, as Ira does? If so, wouldn't someone with a similar policy stance, but a better history of maintaining the truth be a better choice?

No idiot, we're saying your pearl clutching is as transparent as your supposed morals. - #48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 10:08 AM
Do us all a favor and read through the posts I've made here. Try to point out where I've been clutching pearls, apologize for your mistake, and join us in an adult conversation on the subject of the article? If you are capable.

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 10:22 AM | Reply

#49 I already did.

You'll note I have no trouble calling out lying no matter what letter comes after the candidates name.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 10:55 AM | Reply

Yes, fully 1/7th of your comments here have been on topic. The rest have been attacks on the right and on posters here. Now, about that peal clutching you were going to identify....?

#51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#46 Oh, I'm familiar. Exhibit A.

The GOP has no standing to complain of lies.

#8 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

#52 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-10-08 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now, about that peal clutching you were going to identify....?

#51 | Posted by Avigdore

Your laughable faux concern for lying politicians when it's a Dem being discussed is the pearl clutching numb nuts.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 12:38 PM | Reply

Your laughable faux concern for lying politicians when it's a Dem being discussed is the pearl clutching numb nuts. #53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 12:38 PM |
I've pointed out multiple times the hypocrisy, deflection and whataboutism. I even suggested methods of discussing Warren's lie without having the engage in those behaviors. I'm afraid you don't understand what clutching of pearls is....or faux concern.
I get it that it really eats you up inside to be shown your failings again and again and again. I can empathize how that would upset you and cause you to lash out with childish name calling & weak claims like 'faux concern' and 'pearl clutching'. Do better.

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 12:58 PM | Reply

JPW,

Your blind hatred for all things right of center occasionally prevents you from seeing clearly and/or from being objective.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-08 01:21 PM | Reply

I've pointed out multiple times the hypocrisy, deflection and whataboutism.

Hey idiot, and yes, you are an idiot, that is the faux concern.

You whining about an inconsequential lie from Warren while ignoring the mountain of consequential lies from Trump is the faux concern.

You have slick justifications for Trump's dumpster fire but want a serious discussion of Warren identity politicking her backstory in a foolish attempt to garner the women vote. A candidate and party you're not going to vote for anyway.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:24 PM | Reply

Your blind hatred for all things right of center occasionally prevents you from seeing clearly and/or from being objective.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ

It isn't blind hatred.

It's disgust.

Why? Because of people like Avigdore, people who are addicts with a syringe in their arm, a raw face from meth bugs, a crap pipe in their pocket and cocaine on their nose criticizing somebody for smoking pot a few times.

The overwhelming, rank dishonesty, stupidity and obvious lack of integrity or character is not something that should be acceptable or ignored.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:26 PM | Reply

More false equivalence from rightwing dirtbags.

You elected and gleefully support and defend a Nazi-coddling, toddler-imprisoning, bone saw murderer-supporting, child sex trafficker-befriending, -------------, Putin-fellating felony factory. And you expect anyone to care that Elizabeth Warren checked a box saying she was a native American or that she misstates the reason she left a job in 1971? Get some perspective you ------- traitors.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

A candidate and party you're not going to vote for anyway. - #56 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:24 PM
Still with the name-calling. At least you can't feign ignorance as to why nobody respects your opinions.
Candidate, no
Party, maybe.
As I've said before, I didn't vote for Trump the first time. I expect that trend will continue.

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 01:43 PM | Reply

Wow, lots of bitter libs on this thread, but the story isn't going away, even CBS is calling Sen. Warren out on her discrepancies in her stump speech:

On the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren often tells the story of how she was fired from her first teaching job in 1971 because she was pregnant, a pivotal moment that ultimately put her on a path to Harvard, the United States Senate, and quite possibly the presidency. But recently, several media outlets have questioned the veracity of these claims.

The "showed me the door" anecdote came up often on the campaign trail until recently. And now some outlets have found a 2007 interview Warren gave in which she presents the story in a different light.

Asked by CBS News why she told the story differently at Berkeley a decade ago, Warren said her life since her election to the Senate in 2012 caused her to "open up" about her past.

Warren's changes in phrasing when discussing her dismissal have sparked questions about her story's veracity. Fox News has cited the 2007 interview as a contradiction with her more recent statements. The Washington Free Beacon reported on a transcript from contemporaneous local school board meetings, also obtained and confirmed by CBS News, which said Warren was rehired that spring and that the board "accepted with regret" her "resignation" the following summer.

In fact, the school board minutes show that the board voted by unanimous roll call to extend Warren a "provisional certificate" in speech pathology.

Local newspaper reports from 1971 also present reasons for her leaving the school alternative to what she describes on the trail. The Paterson News, a local paper, reported that summer that Warren was "leaving to raise a family." The next month, a story about the school board hiring a replacement said Warren had "resigned for personal reasons," even though the board had voted to "appoint" Warren to the same speech pathology job that April, according to an earlier report.

Elizabeth Warren stands by account of being pushed out of her first teaching job because of pregnancy

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-08 01:47 PM | Reply

Because of people like Avigdore, people who are addicts with a syringe in their arm, a raw face from meth bugs, a crap pipe in their pocket and cocaine on their nose criticizing somebody for smoking pot a few times.
The overwhelming, rank dishonesty, stupidity and obvious lack of integrity or character is not something that should be acceptable or ignored.

#57 | POSTED BY JPW

What?

This is the subject of this thread:

Warren caught embellishing her past..again

His posts have been on-topic. It's been mostly lefties trying to deflect, that somehow Warren is above reproach and that her negatives are NEVER to be a discussion topic because Trump. That's not how it works.

She's a front-runner for the Dem nomination. This stuff is wholly relevant and is currently a news topic as well as a thread topic.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-08 01:50 PM | Reply

Still with the name-calling. At least you can't feign ignorance as to why nobody respects your opinions.

I don't care if anybody respects my opinions. Very few people here are people who's respect I worry about.

As I've said before, I didn't vote for Trump the first time. I expect that trend will continue.

It's funny how so many claim they didn't vote for the Orange Dumpsterfire but yet can't bring themselves to substantively criticize him.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:51 PM | Reply

It's been mostly lefties trying to deflect, that somehow Warren is above reproach and that her negatives are NEVER to be a discussion topic because Trump. That's not how it works.

That's not what was said at all.

It's clear you didn't understand my analogy one bit either.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:52 PM | Reply

"It's funny how so many claim they didn't vote for the Orange Dumpsterfire but yet can't bring themselves to substantively criticize him.

#62 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-10-08 01:51 PM | "

That speaks strongly of your negativity on everything. Not all of us feel obligated to criticize those for whom we didn't vote. Not everyone is a negative Nellie who can't express themselves without sophomoric name calling.

#64 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-08 02:00 PM | Reply

even CBS is calling Sen. Warren out on her discrepancies in her stump speech

Just like the NYT made Her Emails the biggest story of the 2016 election and not the fact that an admitted sex offender game show host with dementia wanted to be president.

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'll be the first to admit that it's frustrating for Fox News to go after Warren for this embellishment and let Trump's daily activities go unchecked.

And by default, some here are jumping on it as well.

It's partisanship. let it go. The truth is Warren is wrong and needs to apologize, clarify what happened, and move on.. and do it right now.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2019-10-08 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's funny how so many claim they didn't vote for the Orange Dumpsterfire but yet can't bring themselves to substantively criticize him - #62 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-08 01:51 PM
Why would I deflect to Trump in a discussion of Warren's lie? Just because you are trying so desperately to avoid allowing such a discussion, doesn't mean the rest of us are going to succumb to such weak attempts at deflection. You timing is fantastic, by the way.
jpw - 1:51pm "can't bring themselves to substantively criticize him"
Avigdore - 1:32 "You can go on and on and on about how many lies Trump tells, how morally repugnant he is, how devoid of character and destructive to the reputation of America he is...and I'll agree with almost all of it, most likely"

Adding lying to your considerable repertoire?

#67 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 02:05 PM | Reply

Just like the NYT made Her Emails the biggest story of the 2016 election and not the fact that an admitted sex offender game show host with dementia wanted to be president.
#65 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-08 02:01 PM

To be fair, one of those was a rich idiot who was never going to win the presidency and the other was the Secretary of State mishandling classified information.
One was rightfully a much bigger news story until the impossible happened.

#68 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-08 02:07 PM | Reply

It's been mostly lefties trying to deflect, that somehow Warren is above reproach and that her negatives are NEVER to be a discussion topic because Trump.

Example of any post of mine that says Warren is above reproach, please.

#69 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 02:22 PM | Reply

#66

Exactly, if she handles this like she did the whole Fauxcohantus mess it will blow up in her face...again.

Fess up, move on.

The longer this festers the worse it will be.

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-08 02:25 PM | Reply

As as Vox journalist Emily Crockett pointed out on Twitter, it's "trivially easy" to reconcile these facts to Warren's story " if one remembers that pregnancy is a nine-month process. Warren was rehired at 4 months, before she was showing. Two months later, when she would have been visibly pregnant, is when she says she was pressured to leave. It's certainly not uncommon for employers to ask someone to resign rather than to fire them outright, especially in matters such as this.

Warren confirmed this timeline to CBS News in an interview Monday: "All I know is I was 22 years old, I was six months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else. The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job."

It's easy to see why Warren's story about her first pregnancy sticks in the craws of those who resent her recent rise in the polls. Warren uses this story both to position herself as a relatable candidate who understands the challenges of everyday Americans, but also to showcase the talents that allowed her to rise above those humble beginnings " talents, she suggests, that will help her lead the country during difficult times. So it's not surprising that Republicans, and even some on the left who prefer another primary candidate " judging from social media, mostly supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders " would want to take this story away from her.

Salon

#71 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-10-08 02:52 PM | Reply

Elizabeth Warren Is Right. In The 1970s, Pregnant Teachers Didn't Keep Their Jobs.

Back then, teaching was the national model for discriminating against pregnant workers and getting away with it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign is on the offensive against a report that questions a compelling piece of her origin story: her account of being pushed out of her first teaching job because she was six months pregnant.

Although the reports don't contain evidence that Warren is lying, they show there is no written evidence she was fired from her elementary school job and they open the door to the possibility that she voluntarily resigned to raise a family.

What's missing, though, is a crucial fact about the time period when Warren says she was shown the door: In 1971, teaching wasn't just another profession where women experienced pregnancy discrimination. It was the national model for how employers could systematically discriminate against pregnant workers and get away with it.

School districts around the country followed plain-as-day policies that terminated pregnant teachers or forced them to take unpaid leave, usually around the fifth month of pregnancy when they were obviously pregnant. A National Education Association survey in 1970 found that a majority of school districts had such a policy, and that most of those policies came with no guarantee that a teacher would get her job back after giving birth.

That placed school teachers on the front lines of the fraught legal and cultural battles for better protections for working women, writes legal historian Deborah Dinner. National women's groups took up the treatment of pregnant teachers as an organizing cause. Women's legal advocates recruited teachers as civil rights test cases. The Supreme Court's first pregnancy discrimination case, argued in 1973, pitted three pregnant teachers against a "five month" policy. That case, and the questions it left unanswered, became the basis for the landmark Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

In other words, when a pregnant Warren left her teaching job, pregnancy discrimination against teachers was rampant, controversial and inextricable from the much larger battle on the overall status of working women. The question isn't why her school board would lie about forcing her out " it's why wouldn't it?

For the full article, go to:

www.huffpost.com

OCU

#72 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-08 07:09 PM | Reply

As I suspected - regarding the timeline of her pregnancy. Thanks Derek.

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 08:42 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY OCUSER

This is funny, it drips of hyperbolic phrasing.

I don't see what the big deal is, especially to go for so many posts.

Seems like DRLeft protests a little too much.

#74 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-08 08:54 PM | Reply

"As I suspected - regarding the timeline of her pregnancy. Thanks Derek.
#73 | POSTED BY YAV "

And exactly as I predicted yesterday, in swoops YAV to make the argument "Someone, somewhere was discriminated against so obviously this happened to Liz as well". Not only that, but they go on to claim the whole school board is lying and the documented extension given to Warren somehow is just further proof of the conspiracy. Sorry Libs, your lying to win the game of "Greatest Victim" is laughable. Warren is dead in the water despite the race being handed to her by Biden - enter Hillary.

#75 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 09:50 PM | Reply

I didn't make that argument, LiarIra.
You did, and now your attributing it to me so you can then point at it and say "See! I was right!"
Which actually says a lot about you.
You'd have nothing to argue about if it wasn't all the lies you make up to argue against.

#76 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:15 PM | Reply

#76 | POSTED BY YAV

What did you mean by this statement: "As I suspected - regarding the timeline of her pregnancy."

Please explain.

#77 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 10:36 PM | Reply

Why bother? You'll lie about it anyway.

g-night.

#78 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:41 PM | Reply

"You'll lie about it anyway.
#78 | POSTED BY YAV"

Caught in a lie just like your idol Lying Liz. Still butthurt over my prediction of your behavior being 100% correct? The funny thing is that I know you read my post yesterday and you could not contain yourself from doing it anyway. Such predictable losers on the Left.

#79 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 10:49 PM | Reply

I knew you'd lie.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:51 PM | Reply

I read your post yesterday?
What are you talking about?
Dear god, you're a loon.

#81 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:53 PM | Reply

Seriously - good night. Enough weirdness from you tonight. Ick.

#82 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-08 10:54 PM | Reply

"I read your post yesterday?
#81 | POSTED BY YAV "

post 16 -------...you even responded to it just like I said you would.

#83 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 11:30 PM | Reply

"As I suspected - regarding the timeline of her pregnancy. Thanks Derek.

Yeah, I wasn't willing to take the claims that she lied as truth until I heard her side of the story. When I read the claims last night I thought there was a good chance her version of events would fit the "timeline" and "evidence" being used to discredit her

JUST IN: New Details Support Elizabeth Warren's Account She Was Let Go From Teaching Job for Being Pregnant

www.mediaite.com

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-08 11:39 PM | Reply

From the above article:

The Massachusetts senator did not dispute a recent report by the Washington Free Beacon, which found the local school board voted unanimously to renew her contract in April 1971. However, she told CBS News that neither her principal nor the school board were aware she was pregnant at the time her contract was renewed: "She had been hiding her pregnancy from the school."

Of note, Warren's daughter, Amelia, was born on September 2, 1971, meaning Warren would've been between four and five months pregnant at the time of the school board vote. The Massachusetts senator went on to tell CBS News: "I was pregnant, but nobody knew it. And then a couple of months later, when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job."

Two retired teachers from the same school district, who worked there during the same time period, told CBS News that Warren would've been a target for dismissal once she became pregnant.

"Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed," CBS reports.

"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant" Randall told CBS. "Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer."

In addition, a June 21, 1972 Associated Press news article from the (N.J.) Herald News emerged on Monday, published one year after Warren left her teaching job. That story explained that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey's classrooms" thanks to a State Division of Civil Rights ruling from the day before that overturned the practice.

#85 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-08 11:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Liz told the truth as I suspected in post #6.

The mushroom head gobbling cultists we so desparate to find fault in Warren they fell for Reich wing lies again.

What sad little fools.

It will break their hearts when they realize they have been --------- a pedo traitor.

#86 | Posted by bored at 2019-10-09 12:18 AM | Reply

Correct. Trump does lie, a lot. I don't deny that on partisan grounds. That is what is different.
#24 | Posted by iragoldberg

Good to know because:

Trump's tall tale about the military being out of ammunition shows how his lies evolve

Trump added layer upon layer of exaggeration until a fib became one of his most absurd lies.

www.vox.com

#87 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 12:24 AM | Reply

#87 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Great deflection - now back to Lying Liz and her playing "The Biggest Victim"....no evidence supports her contention and I think the school board is not going to take kindly to her baseless claims.

#88 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-09 02:59 AM | Reply

Perfect.

#89 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 09:31 AM | Reply

Gal,

Without comparing Warren and Trumps lies, I'm just pointing out she has demonstrated she's just another politician who will lie.

I would guess she will continue to fabricate "facts" now and if she is elected.

Don't act too high and mighty about who lies and doesn't.

#90 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-10-09 10:40 AM | Reply

Eberly nailed it in #66

That is all...

#91 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-10-09 10:41 AM | Reply

"now back to Lying Liz and her playing "The Biggest Victim"....no evidence supports her contention and I think the school board is not going to take kindly to her baseless claims."

The Massachusetts senator did not dispute a recent report by the Washington Free Beacon, which found the local school board voted unanimously to renew her contract in April 1971. However, she told CBS News that neither her principal nor the school board were aware she was pregnant at the time her contract was renewed: "She had been hiding her pregnancy from the school."

Of note, Warren's daughter, Amelia, was born on September 2, 1971, meaning Warren would've been between four and five months pregnant at the time of the school board vote. The Massachusetts senator went on to tell CBS News: "I was pregnant, but nobody knew it. And then a couple of months later, when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job."

Two retired teachers from the same school district, who worked there during the same time period, told CBS News that Warren would've been a target for dismissal once she became pregnant.

"Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed," CBS reports.

"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant" Randall told CBS. "Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer."

In addition, a June 21, 1972 Associated Press news article from the (N.J.) Herald News emerged on Monday, published one year after Warren left her teaching job. That story explained that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey's classrooms" thanks to a State Division of Civil Rights ruling from the day before that overturned the practice.


#92 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 11:10 AM | Reply

Without comparing Warren and Trumps lies, I'm just pointing out she has demonstrated she's just another politician who will lie.

Must be awful to have to make that comparison so you can pretend not to be making any comparison, just so you can then make a false equivalence. Your candidate must really, really, suck.

That's the ol' "They're all the same" garbage.

Hint: No. They're not. Thank goodness, too.

#93 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 02:07 PM | Reply

Elizabeth Warren Is Right. In The 1970s, Pregnant Teachers Didn't Keep Their Jobs.

BULL.

#94 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-09 02:36 PM | Reply

I had two teachers that went bye-bye without explanation, but both had started showing, so no, it's not BULL.
www.nytimes.com
Seriously - do you folks just make up something and say it loud so people think it's true?

#95 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 02:53 PM | Reply

#95 Are we playing "my anecdote nullifies your argument" now?

#96 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-10-09 02:56 PM | Reply

"Elizabeth Warren Is Right. In The 1970s, Pregnant Teachers Didn't Keep Their Jobs.
BULL."

We're not talking about the 1970s. We're talking about NJ in 1971:

"In addition, a June 21, 1972 Associated Press news article from the (N.J.) Herald News emerged on Monday, published one year after Warren left her teaching job. That story explained that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey's classrooms" thanks to a State Division of Civil Rights ruling from the day before that overturned the practice."

#97 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 03:00 PM | Reply

#96 - so, we're playing "try being honest for once" - hence the cite of the Supreme Court case on this subject.

#98 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 03:07 PM | Reply

"hence the cite of the Supreme Court case on this subject."

They didn't read this part:

"The Supreme Court's first pregnancy discrimination case, argued in 1973, pitted three pregnant teachers against a "five month" policy. That case, and the questions it left unanswered, became the basis for the landmark Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978."

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 03:16 PM | Reply

#99 - perfect cite, Gal. The point of the questions I asked earlier, which Ira said were meant to determine how accurate and thorough these "reporters" were in their reporting. The questions were neutral, not leading, but had context. A context those at the Free Beacon either choose to ignore, weren't diligent enough to research, or were just clueless of history.

#100 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 03:22 PM | Reply

Excuse me - too much editing. The line should be:

"The point of the questions I asked earlier, which Ira said were meant to bolster Warren's case, but I asked to determine how accurate and thorough these "reporters" were in their reporting."

#101 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 03:23 PM | Reply

"A context those at the Free Beacon either choose to ignore, weren't diligent enough to research, or were just clueless of history."

Or perhaps they knew but didn't care, knowing that putting the lie out that Warren was lying would fly around the internet before the truth could be expressed and that once the lie was out there, the lie is what many people would remember, not the "context" correction.

#102 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 03:30 PM | Reply

True. Based on the way *some* picked it up and started screaming the lie, I bet you you're 100% right on that, Gal.

#103 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 03:48 PM | Reply

However, The Washington Free Beacon discovered the minutes of a meeting of the local school board from April 1971 showing that her contract had been renewed. Two months later, the board minutes show, her resignation "effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret."

Local newspaper reports from 1971 also present reasons for her leaving the school alternative to what she describes on the trail. The Paterson News, a local paper, reported that summer that Warren was "leaving to raise a family." The next month, a story about the school board hiring a replacement said Warren had "resigned for personal reasons," even though the board had voted to "appoint" Warren to the same speech pathology job that April, according to an earlier report.

#104 | Posted by homerj at 2019-10-09 05:16 PM | Reply

#104 - you're late to the party and brought nothing with you.

#105 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-09 06:08 PM | Reply

-#104 - you're late to the party and brought nothing with you.

Less than nothing.

#106 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-09 08:05 PM | Reply

Keep this thread handy for when the same liars try this again.

#107 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-10 09:15 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort