Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren’s erroneous claim to have tried to help women with breast implant claims when she represented Dow Chemical

Elizabeth Warren’s erroneous claim to have tried to help women with breast implant claims when she represented Dow Chemical

My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight discussing the investigations by Legal Insurrection and the Washington Post disputing Warren’s claim to have tried to help women with breast implant claims when in fact she represented Dow Chemical which was fighting any liability.

https://youtu.be/ikT4cMvwQsE

I appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to talk about Elizabeth Warren’s representation of Dow Chemical in breast implant litigation, and how she has not been forthright about her role. She portrays herself as having fought for the women, when the reality was quite different.

The Washington Post recently published an investigation that confirmed my prior reporting that Warren’s representation of Dow Chemical, the parent corporation of the breast implant manufacturer, Dow Corning, was not to help the women.

As WaPo put it:

When Dow Corning faced thousands of lawsuits in the 1990s from women saying they had become sick from the company’s silicone gel breast implants, its parent firm, Dow Chemical, turned to one of the country’s leading experts in corporate bankruptcies: Professor Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, now a Democratic presidential candidate, has never publicly discussed her role in the case. Her campaign said that she was “a consultant to ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury” from the implants and that a $2.3 billion fund for the women was started “thanks in part to Elizabeth’s efforts.”

But participants on both sides of the matter say that description mischaracterizes Warren’s work, in which she advised a company intent on limiting payments to the women.

“She was on the wrong side of the table,” said Sybil Goldrich, who co-founded a support group for women with implants and battled the companies for years. Goldrich said Dow Corning and its parent “used every trick in the book” to limit the size of payouts to women. The companies, she added, “were not easy to deal with at all.” ….

A person familiar with Warren’s role who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe litigation strategy said the future senator was part of a Dow defense team that had containing the company’s liability as a goal….

Shortly after The Post contacted Warren’s campaign for comment on this story, a lawyer from Warren’s campaign called Gold­rich, the advocate for breast implant victims, to ask her to make a positive statement about the settlement.

“They asked, ‘Could I make a comment about whether the deal was fair? Would I say it was a fair deal? Was it fair?’ ” said Goldrich, recalling her conversation. “I wouldn’t say that.”

WaPo acknowledged that I broke the story:

That work surfaced when the blog Legal Insurrection posted a court document from an unrelated case in which Warren said she’d served in an “advisory capacity” to Dow Chemical “in the early days of the Dow Corning bankruptcy.”

For background, see these prior posts of mine:

(Transcription below)

TUCKER: Elizabeth Warren often describes herself as a champion of the underdog. For example, in the 1990s Dow Chemical was hammered with lawsuits for women who said they were poisoned by the company’s breast implants. Warren was involved in that case and in her telling she fought to help thousands of women gain compensation for mistreatment by the corporate giant. Fits her story perfectly. But as it turns out, that’s not true. Just like her Cherokee heritage, it was completely made up. Warren wasn’t fighting for women. She was fighting on behalf of Dow Chemical, it turns out. Bill Jacobson is a professor at Cornell law School. He publishes the blog, which you ought to read, called Legal Insurrection, which first broke this story and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on.

WAJ: Thank you for having me on.

TUCKER: She has been very clear. I fought for women against Dow Chemical. What actually happened?

WAJ: That’s right, this first came up in 2012 during her Senate campaign when her legal practice representing several major corporations against consumers became an issue in the campaign. It was raised by Scott Brown, including her representation of Travelers Insurance, regarding asbestos workers. She on the eve of a debate released to the Boston Globe, a list of 13 cases she was involved in to try to absolve herself of having been essentially representing corporate America against consumers. But she conveniently left off one key case she was involved in, which was the breast implant litigation against Dow Corning and Dow Chemical, its parent corporation. I discovered that case and brought it forward and her immediate reaction was, as you indicated, she was trying to help the women get money, which was preposterous. She was representing Dow Chemical, the parent corporation of the breast implant manufacturer, which was vigorously fighting any claim of liability and she was representing them at that time and advising them.

So there was nothing to suggest that she actually was trying to help the women. There’s everything to suggest that she was actually fighting it. And fast forward to 2019, the Washington Post just completed an investigation which confirmed exactly what I was saying, which is that she was not attempting to help the women. She was fighting against the women. And in fact they interviewed people who were involved,  said, who said that she was on the wrong side of the table. So this is another example of Elizabeth Warren not being, not having lived the life she demands others live. She vilifies big corporations, she does all of those sort of things. Yet she represented Dow Chemical and many others. There’s nothing illegal about representing Dow Chemical or big corporations against consumers. And certainly if she’s playing that role, she’s obligated to do a good job for them. But why is she portraying it as something other than was and why is she qualifying these corporations,

TUCKER: I’ll tell you exactly why, because Elizabeth Warren representing big corporations against consumers is like PETA running a slaughterhouse. It’s the exact opposite of what she’s promising. I mean it’s like a full inversion. It’s bewildering. And if it hadn’t been for your piece, I don’t, I wouldn’t have known about it and I don’t think our viewers would have either. Bill Jacobson, you’ve really done a service in bringing that to light. Thank you very much. Thank you.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Credit where it is due, figuratively and literally. Nice going.

Absolutely fantastic investigative journalism.

Colonel Travis | July 24, 2019 at 12:02 am

If only the (R) party were this rock solid….
Thank you, prof.

Thank you for this valuable service, Professor. Warren is a monstrous fraud, and I hope this information sinks her presidential hopes for good. Sybil Goldrich’s statement is especially damning because Warren’s campaign had come fishing for an exculpatory statement, and got turned down cold.

Shrieking Crow has forked tongue.

But why is she portraying it as something other than was and why is she qualifying these corporations,

???

All good investigative work . . . but stuff like this is pretty cryptic.

Publius_2020 | July 24, 2019 at 2:57 am

Someone should try to dig up the fee application for the Dow work. Bankruptcy lawyers have to file a motion for permission to charge the debtor’s estate, so if she did work for Dow Corning, it will appear on those applications. And if she did not work for Dow Corning, then she was working for Dow Chemical.

    Milhouse in reply to Publius_2020. | July 24, 2019 at 4:22 pm

    Nobody has suggested she worked for Dow Corning. This entire story is about her work for Dow Chemical, and her false claims about what exactly she did for that company.

Prof. Jacobson,

It’s great to finally witness your ascention to the lofty ranks of well-known political commentators who are actually worth a damn.

Right George Will, Bill Kristol and the rest of you GOPe rats?

List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

The elephant in the room is not that Fauxcahontas merely represented Dow. The BIG elephant in the room is: she lost.

Even if she wasn’t a corrupt, lying fascist, she’s incompetent.

    Publius_2020 in reply to TheFineReport.com. | July 24, 2019 at 4:32 am

    I wouldn’t leap to that conclusion.

    A (maybe “the”) key issue in the Dow Corning bankruptcy was whether they could shield Dow Chemical from third-party claims. There was a lawsuit in Nevada that resulted in a big judgment against Dow Chemical on a negligence and fraud theory, and a big reason for the bankruptcy filing was to shut down that train before Dow Chemical got hit with billions in liability.

    The key contested provision in the bankruptcy plan was the provision that allowed Dow Chemical (a non-debtor) to obtain immunity from future suits by people not part of the bankruptcy class. That practice was highly controversial, and there is a Circuit split on whether it is even legal. But they got away with it in the Dow Corning bankruptcy.

    If Liz worked on that issue, then she absolutely won — but she won for Dow Chemical and stiffed the women plaintiffs.

      Milhouse in reply to Publius_2020. | July 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm

      Remembering, once again, that every one of those women plaintiffs was a fraud, and deserved to get “stiffed”. Unfortunately they could not be “stiffed” for the entire amount they fraudulently sought.

      You have a great point.

      But Fauxcahantas deserves derision, fake or not: just as she puts out onto other people, fake or not.

    great unknown in reply to TheFineReport.com. | July 24, 2019 at 2:21 pm

    It’s a good thing when corrupt, lying fascists are incompetent.

“erroneous”?

This was no mistake.

She’s deliberately claiming to have represented one side in a lawsuit while having actually represented the other.

I think the word you were looking for is “fraudulent”.

    Paul in reply to Aarradin. | July 24, 2019 at 12:26 pm

    There seems to be a pattern emerging with her, doesn’t there?

    Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | July 24, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    Um, no, she has never claimed to have represented the plaintiffs. There’s no question that she worked for Dow Chemical, and she hasn’t tried to deny that. Her lie is about what it was she did for DC, and why she did it.

      Aarradin in reply to Milhouse. | July 25, 2019 at 3:58 am

      Did you read the article above at all??

      That’s the entire point of it. That she’s claimed to have represented the women against DOW when, in fact, she did the opposite.

      From the Professor’s interview, “I discovered that case and brought it forward and her immediate reaction was, as you indicated, she was trying to help the women get money,”

      Please stop wasting people’s time, Milhouse.

        Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | July 25, 2019 at 8:18 am

        Yes, I did read the article; you evidently did not. Nowhere in the article does it say that she claimed to have represented the plaintiffs. She has never ever made such a claim, and Prof J did not suggest that she has. Her claim is and always has been that her work for Dow Chemical consisted of helping the plaintiffs get what they deserved. It’s inherently a plausible claim, i.e. Dow could have assigned a lawyer to such a task, but it isn’t true.

        (Of course, since none of these plaintiffs actually deserved a penny, she was in fact working to get them as close as she could to what they truly deserved. But that’s not what she’s claiming now.)

smalltownoklahoman | July 24, 2019 at 7:39 am

It’s good to see this story getting more exposure, especially on nationally syndicated tv. The more Warren is exposed for the fraud she is the less likely it is she’ll become the nominee, much less of having a chance to win the presidency (not that there was much of one to begin with).

JackinSilverSpring | July 24, 2019 at 8:12 am

False in one thing, false on everything.

Little Fauxahontas lie

Now let this soak in,a woman who built her entire career on lies or omission conventionally forgot the details.

Molly Bloom | July 24, 2019 at 8:46 am

The case against Dow was not for women, but the lawyers leading the class action. There’s little to no evidence that the implants caused the many claims of lupus and other symptoms listed in the complaint.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/21/us/panel-confirms-no-major-illness-tied-to-implants.html

Warren may have failed as a lawyer, but the reality is the Dow Settlement was more about limiting potential losses than helping women.

    Publius_2020 in reply to Molly Bloom. | July 24, 2019 at 4:08 pm

    Since that was the entire purpose of the Dow Corning bankruptcy, the Dow lawyers did not “fail” — they succeeded. Dow Chemical was willing to throw its equity in the Dow Corning subsidiary into the settlement pot; what it really wanted was to be immunized from claims without having to file BK itself. It got exactly that.

    It is not clear whether Warren was ever offered as an expert witness by Dow. If that was the case, there should be an expert declaration somewhere in the court file. If not, then she was providing some other kind of advice — and the ability to insulate a non-debtor parent corporation was the most likely topic.

All medical products made of silicone were lost from the market. Screwed some of my work royally. If Warren was representing the women here, I would actually call her actions a greater disservice to women and ALL people. Being on the defense was a better position, though that isn’t the issue here.

More and more of those seeds you planted along the way are beginning to take root. Shows that persistence and getting it right pays off eventually. Another admirable “over-night success” story.

Massinsanity | July 24, 2019 at 10:14 am

I tuned in last night and it sure seemed that time was getting tight on the show. You did a great job Professor Jacobson of summarizing Warren’s latest deception in the limited time you had available and I was pleased that Tucker didn’t interrupt you as you clearly laid out the facts.

His analogy of this being like finding out that PETA was operating a slaughterhouse was a perfect way to wrap up the segment.

Please stay on this phony as we cannot have her anywhere near the WH.

2smartforlibs | July 24, 2019 at 10:27 am

It was nice watching you on Chatsworths show last night.

LukeHandCool | July 24, 2019 at 11:08 am

It’s getting to the point where you can’t turn on the TV without seeing Professor J.

I mean that as a good thing.

Bravo Zulu, Professor! Excellent research, excellent presentation of the facts.

One minor point, don’t be so stiff on camera. Your students and followers know you to be open and friendly.

erroneous claim

That’s some highfalutin way you’ve got, of spelling “intentional lie.”

I’ve always been skeptical that any women were harmed by these implants.

And everyone (even Dow Chemical) has a right to legal representation.

But, as this was an adversary process in which she represented the interests of Dow Chemical, how could she imagine that, really, she somehow was representing the other side?

it’s not just that she’s a liar, but that she tells lies no reasonable person could possibly believe. She must realize that everything she says will be carefully examined. Is it possible that she’s somehow come to believe her own lies??

    rabidfox in reply to Albigensian. | July 24, 2019 at 2:49 pm

    No. I just that, like most lefties, no one has challenged their lies. When you live in a bubble you forget that outside that bubble people are less interested in the narrative and more interested in the reality.

    Milhouse in reply to Albigensian. | July 24, 2019 at 4:29 pm

    She claims that her work for Dow Chemical consisted of looking out for the plaintiffs’ interests and making sure they got what was coming to them. This is not inherently implausible; one can easily imagine that a defendant company in Dow’s position might have appointed one of its lawyers to keep it on the straight and narrow and prevent it from stiffing people and causing bad publicity. But it’s not what happened.

Maybe she just resented “voluptuous” women and women who wanted to be that way…

Maybe Warren’s efforts were limited to women with penises.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend