Elizabeth Warren dare not show the box she checked
If Warren released her employment records it likely would destroy her campaign
At the two prior debates, Scott Brown effectively used the line that Elizabeth Warren “checked the box.”
As discussed with regard to yesterday’s polling, this is hurting Warren.
But so far in the debates no one has mentioned what box Warren checked, and why she doesn’t want to release the records showing that box.
That box almost certainly was identical to what Harvard now uses, the standard EEOC definition of Native American which requires both Native American ancestry and either tribal affiliation or community recognition:
Warren cannot meet either test. She cannot point to an ancestor who was Native American, and she never had tribal affiliation or recognition by any Native American community.
Why do I keep on harping on this definition?
It’s because it puts to rest the notion that Elizabeth Warren’s “family lore” could justify her checking this box. At the time she checked the box she would have known that she did not meet the definition.
If this is the box Warren checked, and it likely was, then she knowingly claimed an ethnic identity she knew she was not entitled to claim based on a definition which was spelled out for her.
That is why Warren will not release her employment records. If she did so her family lore would be revealed to be a diversion.
Equally impotrant, the checking of that box might have legal implications depending upon whether the document was signed under oath or penalty of perjury. Even if not under penalty of perjury, the box was checked for Harvard’s federal filing purposes, which creates its own set of problems for Warren.
I don’t think most people understand the significance of this box. It’s not just a box, it’s a window into Warren’s ethnic deception. There’s a reason Warren is hiding it.
And it needs to be explained succinctly to viewers the next time the box checking comes up.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Wow. I think that needs to feature in an ad, with a big red checkmark being drawn in the box, and then Warren offering her pathetic defense.
I hear she is a lawyer. She should know what that box means.
Professor: Great job of exposing Ms Warren’s dishonesty.
Your work also raises the question regarding why there’s a rumbling that Ms Warren is “presidential timber?” That simply doesn’t make sense at all.
I am so hope we get pudding soon.
I come to this site to be inspired by cutting edge investigations and honest reporting. Prof. Jacobson does not disappoint.
‘why there’s a rumbling that Ms Warren is “presidential timber?” ‘
Certainly! She making (pause) an ash of herself.
Actually, I would do a voice over while looking at this question with a hand holding a pen.
“Hmmmmm. I need this job and if I am an Indian, I get. Hold on … ( phone dialing … ring ring ) … Hey mom, what do you think of my cheekbones? Yea, you think they look like an Cherokee Indian! Mom, you are so sweet to say that. That is all I wanted to hear. Love you mom. Great, now I can check it.”
Then the box gets checked.
I don’t think the issue is whether she checked the box. Everyone has heard of people cheating the system. It’s the tangible benefit she accrued from cheating that makes it a story.
Give us something the casual liberal would sink his teeth into. “Checking the box” is the action, so what happened when she did that?
Make it kitchen table real…
PhilllyGuy, “checking the box” is a metaphor for exactly what you wrote…”cheating”. This isn’t complicated. The lie began when she checked the box and it continues to this day but it’s the same lie (and the same cheat) throughout her career.
Harvard is as guilty/complicit in the deception by failing to properly vet her at the time the box was checked, and by failing to investigate this matter now and take any disciplinary action if “warren-ted”.
Walls: Thank you for making this point. I also make it. Because of its name ,”Harvard” gets a pass on this. Its just a part of the bennies that goes with being of the “Privileged Elete.”
When I went to law school, I vividly remember the Dean ( a good ole boy from Alabama) joyfully remarking to a colleague (and not realizing he was in ear shot) that a female classmateof mine who was of color was a “two bagger” for his report to the government; I’m sure that Lieawatha satisfied the same joyful function for Hahvad.
I’m sure that the penalty for her deception on Hahvad is nothing worse than, “so what?”, as they couldn’t give a rat’s patoot about it.
This is why an honest person cannot defend Warren, regardless of politics. As an attorney, Warren had to have understood the distinction between personal belief about one’s heritage and the legal threshold required for claiming that heritage for EEOC purposes.
At the debate tonight, Scott Brown should present a Harvard release form and challenge Warren to sign it.
I just saw Warren’s new ad featuring the asbestos victims. Pardon me, but she can’t say she had their best interests at hand if she represented the insurance company. Wouldn’t that be another legal ethics violation.
It was not like she was a mediator in alternative dispute resolution, she was a lawyer representing a client. She can only advocate for the insurance company, not the victims. I’m not trying to jump all over Warren, but as an attorney you represent the client and you work within the law for the best interest of the client. Travelers paid the asbestos victims, not out of good will and charity, but out of contractual obligation. Warren job was to protect the insurance company, that was her goal. She did a good job of it, but to make the claim she was advocating for the victims would be incorrect. By definition and legal ethics, she could not.
I’m trying to think of this situation at a smaller scale.
What if I was a local personal injury attorney, and there was an issue of damages and liability. The insurance company hires another local attorney to defend their interests. In the end, it goes to trial in the district court. The court’s decision limits the insurance company’s liability even though my client received a significant sum in damages.
Years later, the opposing counsel cites the case and makes the claim she was actually helping my client, whens she is running for local office. My very own client even goes as far as to endorse opposing counsel for helping the client receive the settlement, despite there was a trial at the district court in which I as, the plaintiff’s attorney fully advocated for my client, while opposing counsel did everything within the law to limit liability.
Sorry to think out loud, but that is so messed up!
A law school could teach their course on Ethics, based solely on Warren’s legal career.
Just wanted to add to my comment. People digest facts but they act when it hits them emotionally in some way. In general, Democrats react more emotionally and Republicans respond to facts.
So the Checking the Box idea will only sway the heavily Democratic voters of Massachusetts when it hits them emotionally. So give them a real live impact that they can relate to and it will create the doubt that causes them to switch their vote.
Same thing in the Presidential race. Mitt needs to combine his excellent debate statements with real live painful examples of how people are falling behind in this economy.
Use Mitt’s words to solve the pain.
True, and that emotional trigger is exactly what AFP did so well with their commercial …
That’s an ok ad..it only does half of what I was referring to. They need to advocate for the candidate using the candidate’s words to solve the problem.
“People digest facts but they act when it hits them emotionally in some way.”
This one’s a gimmee. Ad narrator: “When Elizabeth Warren lied about her native American heritage to get into Harvard was it you or one of your friends who lost out?”
You have to personalize this so people stop saying, “Well, it’s no skin off my nose.” It is skin off their nose. They need to be made to realize that.
Elizabeth Warren didn’t “get into” Harvard as a student. She went to the University of Houston for her undergraduate degree, and to Rutgers University School of Law at Newark. She currently teaches at Harvard. The problem is, legal academe is the height of credential-snobbery, and a Rutgers-Newark law degree gets a white applicant’s resume tossed directly onto the “Fuck You” pile at any law school in America, to say nothing of Harvard Law School. Only if the would-be law professor is a “person of color” does her credential get excused. As an honest Injun, the law schools would be falling all over themselves to hire this would-be law professor. And that, friends, is why this “check-the-box” issue is a real scandal.
That same graphic you use, Prof., should be the focus of a commercial SPECIFICALLY about that form, and WHY that is important.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Louis Brandeis
Time to move Plymouth Rock, say to Newport, R.I. where Mr. Teresa Heinz boat is..
Keep the hits coming, Wm. However, if the DoJ didn’t go after the NBP, they won’t go after Lieawatha Fauxcahontas Mebiginjunsquaw. Harvard will cover for her, too.
Why do I get the feeling she must hate your guts, Wm?
I’m going to play the devil’s advocate role in that if it has been “years” since she did check the dreaded box, wouldn’t the statute of limitations have expired?
If so, it certainly does not diminish the sense of deception or the usage for personal gain but it may limit any type of legal remedy, yes?
However, she fully fits the set of qualities typical of a liberal democrat where lies, obfuscation and blaming others reign supreme…
When did Warren stop listing herself in the minority directory? 1996?
I think we can assume that after she stopped listing herself, she stopped checking the box?
What years did Harvard claim to have a Indian on staff? When did they stop? Are tehy still so claiming?
How do we know EW did check the box checking as opposed to an admin person at Harvard doing the box checking?
Is there any requirement that EW herself had to certify? I do not think there is.
Some holes here that need filling. Hope someone has these details
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive”
Elizabeth is trapped in her web of sorrow…
What web? To her supporters, she’s the victim and we’re all racists out to get her. Seriously. That’s is how the conversations I’ve been having worked out. On my Facebook wall, I had a conversation in which a local called another a racist. I was called a liar. And when someone chimed in that his in-laws were apart of Cherokee Nation, the Warren supporter called Senator Brown a racist for questioning Warren. That really we need to be upset with Sen Brown, not Warren.
Traveler’s Insurance has been sending out letters to ‘set the record straight’ in support of Warren.
Can’t post it on here, but I could email it to the blog admin.
It states that “Elizabeth Warren won the case for Travelers and the victims”
Sorry to correct myself due to the complexity, the letter is from one of the victim’s law firms. Still it is supporting Warren, while Travelers ‘renege on other grounds’.
Doesn’t Obama have the same problem as a student from Harvard, based on his “citizenship” answer? If not, please explain the differences between student/President of the Harvard Law Review and the professor
Elizabeth Warren = Obama. They are the same. They share the same ideology.
Just as we are Breitbart! #WAR
Warren’s screech at the DNC convention, http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/06/elizabeth-warren-the-system-is-rigged-yes-yes-it-is/ is so telling. She knows first hand that the “System is Rigged.”
What never gets mentioned are the people with legitimate credentials (legal and racial) that got bumped for Warren’s admission. Too bad a few people applying at that time can’t be found to tell their story.
“Show us the box“
[…] Officials and Office-Seeking Politicians! Posted on October 10, 2012 3:30 pm by Bill Quick » Elizabeth Warren dare not show the box she checked – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion But so far in the debates no one has mentioned what box Warren checked, and why she doesn’t want […]