Image 01 Image 03

Report: NY Times Sat On Evidence Debunking Elizabeth Warren Pregnancy Firing Claim

Report: NY Times Sat On Evidence Debunking Elizabeth Warren Pregnancy Firing Claim

Reid “Epstein on April 10 received school-board minutes that challenge Warren’s story”

In early October, the Washington Free Beacon broke the story that county records disproved the pregnancy discrimination claim repeatedly made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

The National Review is now reporting that a New York Times reporter received these documents on April 10th and sat on the story. It’s not clear whether or not he pitched this story to either the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.

The National Review reports:

A reporter who now works for the New York Times failed to report on public records, which he obtained in April, that cut against Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) claim that she was fired from a teaching position in 1971 due to pregnancy discrimination.

Reid Epstein, who was then working for the Wall Street Journal, filed an open-records request with the Riverdale Board of Education on April 2 seeking “to inspect or obtain” copies of public records relating to Warren’s time teaching at Riverdale during the 1970-1971 school year. In response to his request, Epstein on April 10 received school-board minutes that challenge Warren’s story, according to documents obtained by National Review through the New Jersey Open Records Act.

Epstein, who moved to the Times on April 19, never broke the story. Reached for comment, a Times spokeswoman said that the “records were inconclusive” and the potential story required further sourcing.

. . . . Epstein continued to publish articles at the Journal until May 4, none of which included reporting on the school-board minutes. His final byline was published more than three weeks after he received the relevant documents. He declined to comment when asked why he failed to report the story.

New York Times vice president of communications Danielle Rhoades Ha explained that the paper did not feel comfortable publishing the contents of the school-board minutes given that the documents may not fully explain the circumstances of Warren’s departure.

Furthermore, Epstein, reportedly having seen these county records [embedded below], contributed to a NY Times article about Warren’s claim. The article frames her claim as part of a larger problem for pregnant women in the workplace and skims over the damaging evidence Epstein reportedly had in his possession since April.

The National Review continues:

Earlier this month, the Washington Free Beacon obtained the aforementioned school-board minutes showing that the Riverdale Board of Education had approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren in April 1971. Rather than accepting the board’s offer of continued employment, Warren chose to tender her resignation, which was “accepted with regret,” according to minutes from a school-board meeting held two months after the offer was extended.

One day after the Free Beacon reported on the apparent discrepancy, the Times published an article that listed Epstein as a contributor. The Times’ reporting frames the story around “the discrimination that many pregnant women have faced on the job” and highlights Warren’s statement, which dismissed the evidence gathered by the Beacon as lacking in context.

“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,” Warren told CBS News on October 7.

. . . . The Wall Street Journal communications departments failed to respond to a request for comment by press time.

Considering how quickly the NY Times publishes apparently unsubstantiated rumors and other things they end up retracting (or adding “editor’s notes”/corrections to) if it relates to President Trump, their assertion that they cared about context in this case stretches credulity.

You can read the county document below:

Riverdale Board of Educatio… by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


LOL, the lying whores didn’t break the story because it was “inconclusive.”

Yet they’ll ALWAYS run with the leak du jour if it might damage the President.

While it would be fun to punch these “reporters” in the throat, I suppose the best that can be done it to expose them as the partisan hacks that they are.

“All The News That’s Fit to Print”, my hairy ass.

well, hopefully the minutes weren’t ” heavily redacted. ”

” We don’t want this twisted bytch interacting with our students, ” would probably have been redacted outright or modified to something a bit more palatable.

NYT is not a news organization. Expect them to do what they did here.

It would have been perfectly conclusive and credible if it came from anonymous sources “familiar with the matter.”

Sounds like as quid pro quo to me. Give him a job at much higher pay or he will push the documents to the public.

This would one of a long list of exhibits that would support my decision several years ago to terminate my 35-year relationship with the New York Times. The nameplate remains, but they have not been the same newspaper for quite some time.

I consider it a tragedy, because they were so good for so long. But that was then, and this is now.

Isn’t the NY Times objective enough to realize that if Sen. Warren gets the Dem nomination, she’s a sure loser? They and their Party would be better off if she were discredited now and let someone else rise to the top of the heap. Pres. Trump will make fun of her mercilessly if she’s the Dem Party standard bearer.

We’ve all seen movies where the protagonist has problems that must be thought through and then a course of action taken. Issues come up about honor and integrity but then ideology and self-pride come into play. Then there is greed and the desire for money and fame. How does an organization like the NYT live with its self day after day? They know what the print is false and they know it is not news but they continue day after day writing this filth. Is there no one there with any ethics? Have they no sense of shame? Have they thrown in the towel on honor and truth? Do all the people who work there have no self-respect? I thought for years they would get a new editor with integrity but it never happened.

What else is new?

Amazing to watch the ny times go down in flames. But its complete demise is in parallel to the complete demise of our educational and media systems.

What a time.

But thank GOD for Donald Trump.

All the news that’s fit to print. Unless it contradicts the grand narrative. Then we bury it.

I’d for once in what life I have left … like to see a candidate that wasn’t a bald faced liar … even if their policies were crap …

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 5, 2019 at 9:56 am

Mizz Lizzie is a Chronic Liar.

She can’t tell the truth even if her life depended upon it.