Elizabeth Warren hid her lucrative legal practice because it was “contrary to her political narrative”

Elizabeth Warren hid her lucrative legal practice because it was “contrary to her political narrative”

I appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight on December 17, 2019, to talk about Elizabeth Warren’s legal practice, while also a professor at Harvard Law School, in which she made almost $2 million.

It’s a topic I have discussed on Tucker’s show before (here and here).

I have added hyperlinks to the transcript below, so you can see my prior posts on the linked topics.

TUCKER: Elizabeth Warren says she’s happy to debate Michael Bloomberg and his record on women, but is she here to hold her own record to the same scrutiny? Here’s specifically what we’re talking about. This has not received enough attention. In the 1990s, Elizabeth Warren provided legal assistance to Dow Chemical while it was trying to limit payments to women poisoned by the company’s silicone breast implants. And that wasn’t the only case in which Elizabeth Warren worked on the side of a major corporate power against consumers. Again, you haven’t read this piece in the Washington Post recently. Bill Jacobson, by contrast, is all over it. He’s a professor at Cornell Law School and a very precise historian, we would say. He joins us tonight. Professor, thanks so much for coming on.

WAJ: Thank you having me on.

TUCKER: Tell us. Elizabeth Warren’s background siding with big companies against people.

WAJ: That’s right, this became an issue in the 2012 campaign for Senate against Scott Brown. When Scott Brown raised the issue that Elizabeth Warren made $200,000 representing Travelers Insurance in a case which ended up depriving asbestos workers of hundreds of millions of dollars. And that became a big campaign issue. And I analyzed it and I documented quite precisely and quite well I think, how her strategy and the representation she gave directly led to those asbestos workers not getting their money.

But that’s not all there is. When she was called out for that by the Brown campaign, she gave the Boston Globe a list of 10 cases she had worked on. It was a completely incomplete list and this is a history that she has. And she left off that list and I discovered at the time, her representation of Dow Chemical to help deprive breast implant litigants of money.

And she said, well, I was representing Dow Chemical, the parent company of the manufacturer ’cause I was trying to help the women get money. And that was of course, ludicrous. And that’s been demonstrated. And other newspapers recently have proven that.

She also represented an aircraft manufacturer against a family who lost a loved one. She said she represented a large energy company, one of the biggest coal users in the Southeast, in trying to save a rural electric cooperative. In fact, it’s well-documented that she was trying, her client was trying to liquidate the rural cooperative.

So at every step of the way, she not only had a representation contrary to her political narrative, she tried to hide it. She tried to spin it as something else and she never would disclose how much money she made doing it. I estimated it, because I found 22 of her cases, which now is up to over 50 cases. And I estimated that it had to be millions of dollars. And she is now admitted that when the Buttigieg campaign raised the issue, she disclosed that she made almost $2 million from this.

And so the question has to be, she is somebody who is throwing stones and lives in a glass house.

TUCKER: It’s unbelievable.  I mean, she’s like Mr. Burns on the Simpsons from what you’re describing. I mean, does she represent Union Carbide in Bhopal too? I mean, of all people. Just the irony here, Elizabeth Warren is always lecturing you about, and I don’t even like trial lawyers, and I wouldn’t do what she did. So like the irony is overwhelming.

WAJ: And the bigger irony and the bigger issue is, no Democrats have called her out on it, just like they haven’t called her out on her Native American deception where she claimed to be Native American for employment purposes. Not a single democratic candidate has raised that issue in any of the debates. And the question is why?

TUCKER: Because they’re frauds. That’s why. You know, you know the answer, Professor. Thank you so much. You know, it’s funny. The media are so corrupt that we go to a law professor for real reporting and I’m just glad you’re there. Thank you for that.

WAJ: Thank you.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.