Video appears to contradict Warren's suggestion that school fired her over pregnancy

[ducks]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/resurf...fired-pregnant


Warren is a real piece of work!

[ducks]

What!? The same woman who lied about being native american to get a job at Harvard Law School, also lied about being fired because she was pregnant? Noooooo! I'm shocked! Please ... say it isn't so!

[ducks]

The big question is, with Biden and Sanders out of the race, how is Hillary Clinton going to take out Warren?

[ducks]

That principal should sue her for slander.

[koriwhat]

she's butt ing ugly and a liar from . they all are tbh.

[Kim Jong-il]

she's butt ing ugly and a liar from . they all are tbh.

[ducks]

Warren drew about 8,500 people for her rally in downtown San Diego. (A rally for Sanders was attended by an estimated 6,400 people at the same venue in May).



Trump will trump her

[DMC]

[ducks]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...94&oe=5E39F3F7

[hater]

she's butt ing ugly and a liar from . they all are tbh.

To be fair so is Trump tbqh

The ugly lying mother er looks like an orange with hair

[koriwhat]

To be fair so is Trump tbqh

The ugly lying mother er looks like an orange with hair

redundancy...

[boutons_deux]

The right-wing smear campaign against Elizabeth Warren kicks into gear — with a little help from the left

First, fraudster Jacob Wohl launched a bizarre and obviously fake attack on Warren

that was regarded as a joke from start to finish.

Reporter Collin Anderson claimed that:

The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren, do ents 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.”

The only problem with the story is that the do ents Anderson provided show no such thing.

He reported that the board approved Warren for a second-year contract on April 21, 1971.

Then on June 16, two months later, the do ents show that the board accepted her resignation “with regret.”

Never once in the article does Anderson actually explain how these findings contradict Warren’s story.

Which make sense, because they don’t.

The only mystery that remains is why an editor, even at a conservative publication,

would let the story have a headline and a lead paragraph that are unsupported by the story itself.

There’s no reason to think the principal in question couldn’t have discovered Warren was pregnant after her second-year contract was approved and then pressured her to resign.

That is completely consistent with the Beacon’s findings,

yet the story confidently declares that its records contradict her claims. They just don’t.

It’s true that the records don’t say she was asked not to return because she was having a baby,

but no one should have expected that they would.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/the-right-wing-smear-campaign-against-elizabeth-warren-kicks-into-gear-with-a-little-help-from-the-left/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1673

[Isitjustme?]

[koriwhat]

The right-wing smear campaign against Elizabeth Warren kicks into gear — with a little help from the left

First, fraudster Jacob Wohl launched a bizarre and obviously fake attack on Warren

that was regarded as a joke from start to finish.

Reporter Collin Anderson claimed that:

The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren, do ents 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.”

The only problem with the story is that the do ents Anderson provided show no such thing.

He reported that the board approved Warren for a second-year contract on April 21, 1971.

Then on June 16, two months later, the do ents show that the board accepted her resignation “with regret.”

Never once in the article does Anderson actually explain how these findings contradict Warren’s story.

Which make sense, because they don’t.

The only mystery that remains is why an editor, even at a conservative publication,

would let the story have a headline and a lead paragraph that are unsupported by the story itself.

There’s no reason to think the principal in question couldn’t have discovered Warren was pregnant after her second-year contract was approved and then pressured her to resign.

That is completely consistent with the Beacon’s findings,

yet the story confidently declares that its records contradict her claims. They just don’t.

It’s true that the records don’t say she was asked not to return because she was having a baby,

but no one should have expected that they would.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/the-right-wing-smear-campaign-against-elizabeth-warren-kicks-into-gear-with-a-little-help-from-the-left/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1673

She's a joke... that's enough in itself.