Vice President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Washington, D.C.’s Naval Observatory on Saturday for a confidential talk with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), CNN reported.
Biden’s return to the District comes amid buzz he is seriously weighing a 2016 Oval Office bid.
CNN said that two sources confirmed the pair’s face-to-face, the biggest indicator yet that Biden is seriously tempted by an Oval Office bid next year.
“The vice president traveled last minute to Washington, D.C. for a private meeting and will be returning to Delaware,” an aide told CNN. Biden spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff declined further comment on the alleged rendezvous.
CNN initially reported Saturday that Biden arrived in Washington around 11 a.m. and had planned on returning home to Wilmington, Del., later in the weekend.
Warren, a beloved figure in progressive circles, has resisted calls to mount her own presidential candidacy. She reportedly told WBZ radio in Boston on Friday that she considers the 2016 Democratic primary up for grabs.
“I don’t think anyone has been anointed,” said Warren, who has not yet endorsed a candidate.
Hillary Clinton, the heavy favorite for the party’s nomination, is currently grappling with sinking poll numbers amid voter concerns that she is neither a transparent nor trustworthy candidate.
Biden, 72, began mulling a third White House run following the death of his son Beau Biden in late May after a battle with brain cancer.
The vice president is widely expected to make a final decision next month. His entrance into the 2016 campaign would expand the Democratic field to six contenders.
Multiple national polls show Biden would have significant support from Democratic voters should he pursue the presidency next election cycle.
He previously ran for president in 1988 and 2008, both times dropping out early in the Democratic primary process.
William Teach looks at, and destroys, Elizabeth Warren’s 11 commandments
Progressives, who Jonah Goldberg referred to as “nice fascists” in his book Liberal Fascism, have been gaga for Elizabeth Warren from the first. They willing ignored her blatant lies about being a Native American, because of racial politics. They excuse her fundraising from big wig 1%ers. She pushes a progressive populism, while being one of the very rich who work the system she pro-ports to despise (remember that at the end). Search “hypocrite” and you’ll find more than enough to take on her 11 Commandments. But, there is no doubt that the Nutroots, the hardcore Progressive activists, want her to run for President in 2016. Hence, here we go, per National Journal
You have to go read the whole thing, here are some highlights with Teach’s responses
- “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality (in other words, Government should fully control it)
- “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.” (and putting the low wage workers on the unemployment line. Oh, say, has Liz started paying her interns yet?
- “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!” (hooray, no one has to pay $9 a month for birth control pills! Screw your religious freedom)
I know most folks are assuming that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, just like that was assumed in 2008. But Warren is a real threat to Queen Hillary, and, she is just as far Left, if not more s that Hillary is. Do not be surprised if Warren becomes Obama version 2.0
I think Matthews has lost that loving feeling towards Obamunism.
Oh Elizabeth Warren, you fake Cherokee you
In her new book, Elizabeth Warren blames the controversy over her fake Cherokee ancestry on “some blogger,” and since William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection was particularly merciless in exposing her lies, he’s giving credit where credit is due:
In fact, Warren has no one to blame but herself for her false claim to be Cherokee. Read Elizabeth Warren Wiki, and these posts responding to the claims in her book:
Here is some advice for Warren. She might wish to heed my words, even though I am just “some blogger”. Dear Ms. Warren If you do not wish to be called out for lying, then do not tell lies. The days when political hacks like you could just spew lies without fear of being exposed are no more. Mainly because if the main stream media does not do their job, as they usually do not, then “some blogger” will do some checking. In short Ms. Warren, there is there is one way to avoid such inconveniences in the future, it is called honesty. Try that and quit whining.
One of the greatest controversies surrounding Elizabeth Warren was her claim to be Native American, specifically Cherokee.
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. The public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard was promoting her as Native American.
Over the ensuing weeks, information was uncovered by a law professor that starting in the mid-1980s, when she was at U. Penn. Law School, Warren had put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools but dropped from that list when she gained tenure at Harvard. When confronted with this information, Warren admitted she had filled out forms listing herself as Native American, claiming she wanted to meet other Native Americans. That explanation was irrational because the faculty directory only listed her as “minority,” not as “Native American,” so putting herself on that list was not a way to meet other Native Americans.
Later, reporters uncovered that Warren had represented herself to both U. Penn and Harvard for federal reporting purposes as Native American. Warren, however, did not meet the two part test under Harvard and EEOC definitions of Native American, a definition which likely was on the page when she checked the box. Warren has refused to release these records.
Detailed genealogical investigation by Cherokees showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry. Initial claims by a genealogist in Boston that Warren was 1/32nd Cherokee were withdrawn as lacking evidence. Her own nephew, when documenting family genealogy, called claims of Native American ancestry a “rumor.”
Warren insisted during the campaign that believed that she was Cherokee based on family lore, but that family lore (including the famous elopement story) was substantially debunked. Warren’s family always self-identified as white, and her great grandfather even made the local newspapers for shooting an Indian.
Warren’s false claim to be Cherokee, and her comical explanations, such as that her ancestors had “high cheekbones” and a plagiarized entry in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, have become a large part of Warren’s political persona, and is the subject of widespread mockery.
There was a time when Wikipedia, the source to which so many people refer for basic information, contained a detailed explanation of the controversy under its own subheading, and there was an effort made to document the story.
For example, as of June 16, 2012, Warren’s Wikipedia page contained a subheading and detailed explanation (click image to enlarge):
During Warren’s 2012 senatorial campaign, on April 26, 2012 the Boston Herald reported that in 1996, Harvard Law School had “touted” Warren as Native American based on her claim of that ancestry soon after she was hired. The Boston Globe noted other media reports by Harvard in 1997 and 1998; the Crimson in 1998 said, “Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.” The law school was responding to critics at the time who said it had not hired sufficient numbers of women and minorities.
To that point in the campaign, Warren had seldom, if ever, mentioned her ancestry. Three days later, the Herald reported that Warren had identified as a minority from 1986 to 1995 in a directory of law professors. It was often used as a resource by recruiters to make diversity-friendly hires. The Brown campaign, the Native American Rights Fund, and others have questioned her motives and the propriety of her claiming minority status, which was intended under diversity programs to help historically “disadvantaged” populations. A Cherokee group, made up of fewer than 175 members, protested her trying to gain advantage under affirmative action programs, and said that only the Cherokee Nation could determine tribal membership.
The Globe noted on May 25 that “both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.” Harvard’s guideline is twofold; it says that a Native Americans is “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.” By the end of May, Warren had not documented her ancestry. She is not a member of a tribe and the “current executive director of Harvard’s Native American program has said she has no memory of Warren participating in any of its activities.”
On April 30, the genealogist Christopher Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society said he had found that everyone in Warren’s family, through her great-grandparents’ generation, has been listed or classified as white in records. He has noted that documenting Native American ancestry can be difficult. Warren said that she had heard family stories about her Cherokee ancestors her entire life. She said she had identified as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) for chances to to meet people of similar tribal background. (The reporter Hillary Chabot noted the directory does not identify the specific minorities.) Warren said she eventually “stopped checking it off”.
Warren said her family talked of links through her maternal grandparents’ lines to the Cherokee and Delaware peoples in Oklahoma. On April 27, the Warren campaign said she had never authorized HLS to claim her as a minority hire. On May 4, Harvard refused to confirm whether Warren was the one Native American minority claimed in its 2011 diversity report, which notes it is based on self-reporting. No gender was indicated.
On May 12, the Boston Globe reported that, in providing federal diversity data statistics, the Harvard Law School (HLS) had reported employing a Native American woman professor in 1992-93, when Warren was a visiting professor; and for at least six consecutive years beginning 1995-96, after Warren had returned as a tenured professor. The diversity census notes: “Race/Ethnicity designations are from self-report data.” The same day, the AP reported that in 1994, the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren as a minority (she was still working there). She had not identified as such earlier in her career, neither when applying to Rutgers Law School nor when teaching at the University of Texas.
On May 25, Alan Ray, the former Harvard Law School administrator responsible for its diversity statistics during the period examined, confirmed that the data came from self-reporting by faculty; he said that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide”. (Ray is an enrolled member of the Cherokee nation.)
On May 31, Warren acknowledged for the first time that she had told people at Penn and Harvard that she was Cherokee, but denied that “there was [any] reporting for this”. She said she had learned of Harvard’s diversity census after reading about it in the Boston Herald.
In a campaign appearance in early June, Warren repeated that she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed minority status. “I never received any benefit from it. Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect.” In campaign appearances in early June 2012 posted on YouTube, Elizabeth Warren said that, if elected by Massachusetts voters, “I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage.” 
Yet as indicated just below the sub-heading on the historical Wikipedia page above, someone has been objecting to such a detailed explanation. Those efforts resulted in a truncated version of the subsection by early September, after which point – on or about September 13 – the subsection was removed and the explanation buried in a few sentences in the 2012 Election section.
The net result of this effort is that there no longer is a Cherokee Controversy subsection, and the entire discussion of Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Cherokee are three sentences meant to present Warren in the most favorable light possible:
In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s, Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren’s law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as having Native American ancestry. Warren said she identified herself as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background. Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration  and had sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.
The current entry not only is woefully incomplete, it is misleading.
Harvard promoted Warren as Native American because Warren represented herself on federal filing forms to be Native American; the law directory only revealed that she was a “Minority Law Teacher.” Warren’s explanation of why she listed herself that way in the law directory makes no sense, as indicated at the top of this post. Charles Fried’s statement referenced, while accurate in isolation, ignores the fact that Warren and Harvard refuse to release her hiring file, which would be the best evidence of who knew what when. Also, just about everyone else at Harvard seemed to know that she was claiming to be Native American, including the Harvard Women’s Law Journal which in 1993, while Warren was a Visiting Professor, listed her as a Woman of Color in Legal Academia.
The current Wikipedia page has been cleansed of Warren’s most embarrassing ethnic history, a history which is a fundamental part of the political controversy surrounding her.
We will continue to investigate these changes, including attempting to ascertain who it was that engaged in this ethnic cleansing. If there are readers who are savvy in the ways of Wikipedia, we welcome your assistance.
The Boston Globe reported Monday that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren raised $12.1 million for her campaign in the 3rd quarter ending September 30, 2012. That brings the total raised to $36 million. Yet more than 40% of these funds–an estimated $16 million–have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations.
Today’s report, which will be available for full public scrutiny by Tuesday morning, includes $8.7 million raised between August 18 and September 30 after her most recent Federal Election Commission filing–an August 17, 2012 pre-primary report that showed she had raised $3.7 million between July 1 and August 17, and $28 million from the start of her campaign.
Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.
Of the $28 million Democrat Elizabeth Warren raised for her Massachusetts Senate campaign at the time she had filed the August 17 pre-primary report (covering contributions to June 30, 2012), 42% (approximately $13 million) came from “unitemized” individual contributions donated on two online websites that lack industry standard security protections to prevent illegal donations from foreign nationals. When the Warren campaign’s third quarter reports are finally available, we’ll see if that percentage remains.
It is likely that her most recent $8.7 million of donations includes approximately the same percentage of unitemized small donations. If that pattern holds, then slightly more than $3 million of her previously unreported donations came from unsecure online websites, bringing the total amount that her campaign has raised through websites that are vulnerable to fraud to approximately $16 million.
According to FEC regulations, political campaigns are not required to list the name, address, and occupation of individual donors who contribute less than $200 in an election cycle. Campaigns are only required to report the total amount received from these small donors as “unitemized” individual contributions.
The $13 million Warren has reported as “unitemized donations” in her FEC filings up until August 17 constitute an unprecedented 42% of her total contributions. It dwarves the “unitemized donation” percentage of most other Senate campaigns in the 2012 election cycle.
Warren’s 42% of “unitemized” donations is more than double the 15% of her opponent Scott Brown. It is also more than double the percentage of donations of Republican or Democratic candidates in five other 2012 Senate campaigns examined by Breitbart News (Nevada, Missouri, Montana, Arizona, and Nebraska) this cycle, and the range was a low of 1% (Bob Kerrey, the Democratic candidate in Nebraska) to a high of 15% (Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate in Missouri).
According to the New York Times, “In 2008, of donations to House candidates, only 8 percent were less than $200; small donations accounted for 14 percent to Senate candidates.”
The Warren campaign’s prolific fundraising among small donors has been accompanied by disregard for industry security standards designed to prevent fraud and illegal foreign donations. While Ms. Warren is not alone among political candidates in her failure to install basic online security provisions, the scale of her small donor fundraising success suggests that she may have created an online fundraising machine that is particularly vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign donations.
Warren’s 42% puts her in the same category as, and even slightly ahead of, President Obama, who has raised 38% of the $431 million he’s raised from unitemized donations, according to Open Secrets. But, like President Obama, whose lack of online security was highlighted in the Government Accountability Institute’s America the Vulnerable report, Warren seems to have similar vulnerabilities.
As that report found:
The FEC requires campaigns to make their “best efforts” to collect identifying information on all contributors who donate more than $50.30 and even more specific information, such as the donor’s occupation and employer, for donations over $200.
As the report notes, donations less than $50, though, fall under the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, which means campaigns can report all such donations under a lump sum and do not have to make their “best efforts” to collecting information on these small-dollar donors.
Because foreigners can exploit the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, the report found that “any campaign not using these industry-standard security tools is increasing its costs and unnecessarily increasing the risk of at least two types of potential fraud”:
The Fraudulent High Dollar Donor(s): – the fraudulent high dollar donor is politically motivated and is seeking to avoid detection by making numerous donations below the $200 dollar threshold, over which their donation must be identified; they may seek to exceed campaign donation limits.
The Unintentional Fraudster –a foreign national who is unaware of U.S. election laws but sympathetic to the campaign. Such an individual can easily end up on a campaign donation page. Given that a number of campaigns list the U.S. donation laws in an inconspicuous place on the “donate” page, it is easy to see how illegal donations can be made with no malicious intent.
And the Obama campaign is most vulnerable to both types of fraudsters…
Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages – even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise.
This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.
“This creates a security risk that is compounded by the considerable foreign interest in President Obama’s political history, personal story, and views,” the report notes.
The Warren campaign seems to have the same donation vulnerabilities as the Obama campaign. Though a small percentage of the $13 million in donations may have come from other than online sources the vast majority came from donors who contributed online at one of two sites:
ElizabethWarren.com, the official website of the Warren campaign, accounted for an estimated $9 million of this $13 million.
ActBlue, a prolific “conduit” website for donations to Democratic candidates and organizations that provides legal “passthrough” services to an estimated 750 clients, accounted for an estimated $3.7 million of this $13 million.
Neither of these websites have the standard credit card industry CVV and AVS code protections designed to prohibit donations from foreign nationals (which is illegal) or “multiple giving” robo-fraud.
Breitbart News has learned that more than $6.2 million in donations to Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Massachusetts Senate seat came through the Act Blue conduit website. $2.5 million of this amount was itemized and reported in Warren’s FEC filings. $3.7 million came from small donors and was unitemized.
Incumbent Senator Scott Brown does not use a similar conduit website to raise money for his campaign.
ActBlue reports that it has funneled $6,290,125 from 162,470 donors to the Elizabeth Warren campaign in the year and one month between the time Ms. Warren announced her candidacy in September, 2011 and the first week in October, 2012. The average donation is $38.72, which is well below the $200 threshold that is required for the candidate to publicly disclose the name, address, and occupation of the donor in its regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.
According to FEC reports, the names and addresses of only 9,556 of these 162,470 have been included in FEC documents filed by the Warren campaign. These 9,556 named donors contributed $2.5 million of the $6.2 million raised by ActBlue for the Warren campaign. Their average donation was $267.98.
This leaves a total of 152,914 donors who contributed $3.7 million to the Warren campaign through the non-secure ActBlue website unknown and unnamed. Their average donation was $24.79.
In July, 2012, ActBlue reported that the $240,000 it raised for the Warren campaign placed her in the top five of funding passed through among their 750 clients.
The ACT Blue website has virtually no protections to prohibit the acceptance of donations from non-US citizens.
According to its website:
ActBlue is an online toolset that makes it easy for donors to connect with the candidates and causes they support… At ActBlue, our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of grassroots donors across the United States…
ActBlue only accepts donations from individuals, and we direct the money as they specify. We disclose every donation made through ActBlue to the relevant bodies, working to keep the lines of accountability between donors and recipients open.
Both the ActBlue website and the Elizabeth Warren campaign website are among the political websites that lack the basic CVV security code protections to limit fraud and the receipt of foreign donations. The Scott Brown campaign website does have the CVV security code protection.
The ACT Blue website, which acts as a funnel to dozens of Democratic candidates in addition to Ms. Warren, appears to be one of the online websites that lacks this basic security protection.
Visitors to the Act Blue website can browse through an array of Democratic candidates to whom they can contribute. When the Elizabeth Warren contribution page is selected, the drop down box allows contributions from residents of any country. When Canada is selected, another drop down box allows the donor to select a specific province instead of a state.
While American expatriates who live in foreign countries but retain their US citizenship may legally contribute to the campaigns of candidates for office in American federal elections, it is illegal for non-US citizens who reside in foreign countries to contribute to the campaigns of American candidates. It is also illegal for the campaigns of candidates for American federal offices to accept donations from non-US citizens or solicit donations from non US Citizens.
The ACT Blue donation page includes this language at the bottom of the page where donors submit their credit card information:
1. I am a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien.
2. This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
3. I am making this contribution with my own personal credit card and not with a corporate or business credit card or a card issued to another person.
4. I am not a federal contractor.
5. I am at least eighteen years old.
Despite this language, foreign nationals who ignore these contribution rules could easily donate to Elizabeth Warren through the Act Blue website without any detection.
ActBlue was founded in 2004 by Harvard graduate Benjamin Rahn and MIT graduate Matt DeBergalis. It is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, home of Harvard University.
Executive Director Erin Hill, a Wellesley graduate, is a veteran of Democratic political operations in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. As her Twitter account shows, she’s a big fan of Elizabeth Warren.
Phone calls placed to ACTBlue by Breitbart News requesting comment were not returned.
While illegal foreign national donors who go to the official Elizabeth Warren campaign website may not have such an easy time selecting their foreign residence in the drop down box, the Warren site offers a drop down code (AA) which seems to serve a “catch all” purpose which they could use.
Donors to the Warren campaign are required to select either their state of residence (the 50 plus DC) or one of eleven other location codes, only five of which are US territories or commonwealth. According the the ISP 3166 two letter country code standards, here are those eleven non state or DC codes:
AA- User assigned
AE- United Arab Emirates (a sovereign independent nation)
AP – not used
AS – American Samoa (US territory)
FM – Micronesia (a sovereign independent nation)
GU – Guam (US territory)
MH – Marshall Islands (a sovereign independent nation)
MP – Northern Marianas Islands (US commonwealth)
PR – Puerto Rico (US commonwealth)
PW – Palau ( a sovereign independent nation)
VI – Virgin Islands (US territory)
The only way to determine how many of these donors are foreign nationals is to conduct an audit of the ActBlue and Elizabeth Warren financial records for small donors.
The race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown remains neck and neck. A poll released by Rasmussen Reports on Wednesday showed Warren with a 2 point lead over Brown, 49% to 47%, which is within the poll’s 5 point margin of error.
As you are aware, I have pointed out that Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has some explaining to do:
As detailed here before, within hours of my posting about Elizabeth Warren’s lack of a Massachusetts law license, Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, gave an interview to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in which he defended Warren.
Fredrickson did not indicate in the interview as reported that he was speaking in any capacity other than on behalf of the BBO and seemed to be exonerating Warren.
That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren. After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously? Even The Boston Globe has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.
Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged.
Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.
Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice…
Normally, Bar officials everywhere are very closed-mouthed about matters under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the Massachusetts Bar Counsel, a separate office which investigates and prosecutes, did not respond to requests for comment from Breitbart.com. Even Fredrickson now is refusing further comment, according to Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com.
While Fredrickson no longer is talking publicly, his prior “personal” opinion, which was not based on an actual knowledge of Warren’s law practice, hangs out there as the purported BBO verdict exonerating Warren. That creates a false impression which should be remedied.
Frankly, I considered that the very serious issues I raised about Warren’s practice of law would be buried by Fredrickson’s quite unusual and ill-considered statements.
But there is hope.
The Massachusetts Republican Party has sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court complaining that Fredrickson appeared to politicize what is supposed to be a non-political office and judicial function. Here is the press release, which was forwarded to me by someone on the Mass GOP’s email list:
For Immediate Release
October 8, 2012
MassGOP Sends Letter To SJC Questioning Recent Comments By Michael Fredrickson That “Appear To Advance A Partisan Agenda”
Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”
Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108
October 8, 2012
RE: Michael Fredrickson
Dear Chief Justice Ireland:
I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:
• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,’ Fredrickson says. ‘But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).
• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)
• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)
Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.
In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair
Several readers have alerted me to a prior disciplinary problem Fredrickson had at the BBO in which he let a personal agenda get in the way of his job responsibilities.
Whatever the motivation of Fredrickson, his statements need to be corrected forcefully and promptly.
[Note: The title of this post was changed shortly after publication]
A prominent defender of Elizabeth Warren’s legal work while on the Harvard faculty has been presented with new facts and conceded that she is in heap big trouble. I wrote about Mark Thompson’s defense of her right to file briefs in federal court three days ago. But the remarkable William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has now discovered that Warren represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts, and Thompson has conceded the case.
Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.
For the moment, this imbroglio may be confined to the conservative blogosphere, with the legal and media establishments playing defense for Warren (read Prof. Jacobson’s discussion of the extraordinary “‘personal’ commentary offered by Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers” made in defense of Warren. But this is serious, and has legal consequences for Warren.
William Jacobson is in the process of a historic achievement, the takedown of an arrogant liberal phony who acts as if rules are made for the little people. I do believe the tenacious legal research and analysis of his has sunk her candidacy. That may be wishful thinking, but I don’t see how she recovers. I doff my cap to Bill with deep respect.
In a 1994 interview, then-Harvard Law School dean Robert Clark said his institution was actively applying an affirmative action policy to hiring female faculty, The Daily Caller has learned. The famed law school first offered Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren a professorship in 1992 and granted her tenure in 1995.
And charges leveled in a 1990 academic law journal raised serious questions about her qualifications to teach at Harvard at all.
In 1991, Rutgers Professor Phillip Schuchman reviewed Warren’s co-authored 1989 book “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America” in the pages of the Rutgers Law Review, a publication Warren once edited. Schuchman found “serious errors” which result in “grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.”
Warren and her co-authors had drawn improper conclusions from “even their flawed findings,” and “made their raw data unavailable” to check, he wrote. “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.”
The work “contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is,” Schuchman added.
Harvard Law School appears to have overlooked that review, in part, because of its commitment to hiring a woman professor.
“We’re clearly trying to add more women to the faculty,” Clark told the Harvard Law Record in March 1994.
“Clark said HLS was engaging ‘affirmative action’ to the extent it was working to increase the number of women considered and interviewed,” wrote the Record’s Greg Stohr. “He also said the Law School would be willing to hire a qualified woman, even if her area of expertise did not fit an immediate need, but he stopped short of saying the school would lower its qualification requirements for women.”
“I guess what we’re not ready to do is to have a different standard,” Clark told the Record.
But Warren, now on a leave of absence from Harvard to run for office, is the only law school professor there who did not graduate from a top-ten law school. Of the 350 Ivy League law school professors, Warren graduated from the second worst ranked school – Rutgers, ranked no. 82 according to a May 2012 analysis by The Washington Examiner.
Clark had been feeling pressure. In 1992, positive tenure decisions about four white male faculty members touched off student protests and demonstrations which included taking over the dean’s office.
Warren’s first tenure offer in February 1993 coincided with a Friday vigil held by law students demanding more female and minority professors. Students agitating for more campus diversity praised Clark’s commitment to bringing more women on campus, but wanted more minorities.
Hiring more women and minority professors “was something that people were doing already and with their own sense of how to adjust to all the different values and goals we have,” Clark told the Record in October 1994.
“Noting that he wanted to ‘increase diversity on all fronts,’ Clark said HLS needed to remedy its lack of women professors,” the Record reported in February 1995 after Warren accepted the job.
“No matter how you count it, we’re short [on women faculty], and I’ve been trying to address that,” Clark said then.
In a letter to the Harvard Law Record in December 1995, Clark praised his own successes.
“I should note that if one includes visiting professors, lecturers, and clinical instructors, the number of women teaching here full-time in 1995-1996 is 33,” he wrote. “Including part-time teachers the number of women is 51. Of the 15 appointments made over the last four years, seven have been women.”
“It is my goal to offer women students the best possible environment for the study of law and to increase the number of women students and the number of women on the faculty. I think we have made substantial progress in this direction.”
Warren, who had been a visiting professor in 1992, championed the student diversity protests, telling the Record that Harvard law students “have exercised power in a very interesting way.” Citing personal reasons – her husband was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania – Warren turned down that first tenure offer in April 1993, much to Clark’s disappointment.
“I worked very hard on that,” Clark told the Record. “I really wish we could have had a different result.”
Six of the eleven offers of visiting professorships that year went to women. The Record ran a headline on March 18, 1994, reading, “HLS Takes Steps to Bring in Female Profs.”
Warren herself seems to have doubted her own fitness to be a Harvard Law professor. “If you’d told me [I would be granted a tenure offer], “I’d simply have laughed at you and said, ‘What a charming thought! I have as good a chance of flying a rocket ship to the moon,’” she told the Record in February 1993.
Warren ultimately accepted the tenure offer in 1995 and encouraged the campus to become increasingly diverse. Adding women to the faculty is “terribly important,” she told the Record, because without affirmative action “think of all the smart and interesting people you wouldn’t meet.”
Now as Warren runs for the U.S. Senate, she downplays her past while claiming the mantle of meritocracy.
“We’re Americans. We celebrate success. We just don’t want the game to be rigged,” she told the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
“We’ve fought to level the playing field before… Americans are fighters. We are tough, resourceful and creative.”
Warren’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
Apparently Lizzy has a different definition of “strengthened” than us little people.
WARREN: “I don’t see how it can take hold with voters because it’s just not true. The basics is that right now with what the president has done, is he has strengthened Medicare and what he’s really done is he’s given seniors better protection.”
On Friday, Breitbart News caught Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in one of her many tall tales of family lore, forcing her to walk back her September 2011 story about her maternal grandmother, Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed, through whose ancestral line she falsely claims Native American heritage. Today, we’re reporting yet another tall tale Ms. Warren told about her maternal grandmother. We look forward to seeing how Ms. Warren will walk back this most recently discovered tall tale.
As we reported on Friday:
A recently discovered video shows Elizabeth Warren telling another tall tale about her family. The day after she announced her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren told the convocation at the University of Massachusetts-Boston: “My grandmother drove a wagon in the land rush to settle territory out west. It was 1889, she was 15 years old…She lived to be 94, to see her youngest grandchild – that’s me – graduate from college…”. The only problem with this story is that it’s not true.
Warren’s maternal grandmother died in 1969, the year before Warren graduated from college, and her paternal grandmother was only 2 years old in 1889.
Later that day, Ms. Warren was forced to “correct the record.” In an interview with the Boston Herald, she told a new and different story about her grandmother Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed: “My grandmother lived to know that I would graduate from college and that I had a teaching job.”
Having corrected one tall tale from that September 2011 speech to the convocation at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, Breitbart News would like to give Ms. Warren an opportunity to “correct the record” once more on another tall tale told that day. In the speech, she stated that her grandmother’s mother had died before the 1889 land rush story took place.
My grandmother drove a wagon in the land rush to settle Oklahoma Territory out west… It was 1889, she was 15 years old, and she had her little brothers and sisters in the back of the wagon. Her mother had died, and her father had ridden ahead on horseback to try to find land near water.
The only problem with that claim is, once more, it isn’t true.
Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed’s mother, Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford, was born in Missouri in April 1860. Her father, John H. Crawford, was born in Missouri in March 1858. When Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed was born in Missouri in October, 1875, her mother “Pliny” was 15 years old, and her father John H. Crawford was 17 years old.
Shortly after Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford’s birth, the family moved to Texas, where sister Louisa was born in 1877. The family, with daughters Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford, age 5, Louisa, age 3, mother Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford, age 20, and father John H. Crawford, age 23, were living in Arkansas as shown in this 1880 census document posted on the website Pollysgranddaughter. Information for the children shows that both parents were born in Missouri. (The family’s surname is spelled “Crofford” in both the 1880 census and the 1900 census, but subsequent to 910 records of the family revert to the original “Crawford” spelling. It is not unusual to see spelling variations on surnames in records during this period.)
Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed’s mother, Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford, and her father, John H. Crawford (Crofford) had three children born in Oklahoma Indian Territory after 1889, as another 1900 census document from Oklahoma Indian Territory posted on the website Pollysgranddaughter shows.
Son Edie Crawford was born in 1894, son Rosco Crawford was born in 1896, and daughter Bessie Crawford was born in 1897. When Rosco Crawford died in San Joaquin County, California in 1984, the California Death Index listed his mother’s maiden name as Bowen.
Note that neither mother Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford (presumed deceased between 1897 and 1900) nor daughter Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed (married to Harry G. Reed in 1893) were living with father John H. Crawford and the younger siblings, according to the 1900 census document.
A careful viewing of the 1900 census document reveals that John H. Crawford’s marital status was listed as “Wd” – widower.
Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford’s whereabouts between the birth of her last child with John H. Crawford in Oklahoma Territory in 1897 and the 1900 census that lists her husband as a widower are unknown. Her ultimate resting place appears to be the Oakland Cemetery, 402 Cemetery St, Clarksville, Arkansas, where she was interred in January 1905. This detailed and documented genealogical study of Elizabeth Warren’s maternal side of the family listed at the North Shore Journal website states that her parents, George Washington Bowen and Bethania Clark Bowen, were living there at the time. George Washington Bowen died there in 1907, and Bethania Clark died there in 1924. Records indicate that both were buried at the Oakland Cemetery where their daughter is buried.
The burial headstone of Ms. Warren’s great-grandmother, Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford, reads as follows:
Pliny Ann Crawford
Dau of George and Bethanie Bowen
Born April 7 1860
Died January 1905
Gone from our Home but not from our memory
The specific date of Paula (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford’s death is uncertain. Whether she was first buried in Oklahoma at the presumed time of her death between 1897 and 1900, then re-interred in the Clarksville, Arkansas cemetery in January 1905 after her widower husband John H. Crawford moved to Missouri and married Sarah E. Smith in September 1904, documented here in this marriage certificate posted on the website Pollysgranddaughter, is not known. Alternatively, she died and was buried in Clarksville, Arkansas in January 1905, having lived apart from her husband and family subsequent to 1899.
This much, however, is certain: Bethanie (Hannie) Crawford Reed’s mother, Paulina (Pliny) Ann Bowen Crawford, was not dead in 1889 as Ms. Warren claimed, and the three children she subsequently bore her husband John H. Crawford absolutely prove that fact.
Breitbart News has sent this information to Ms. Warren’s campaign. We will report her response when we learn of it.
Elizabeth Warren has played hard to get on the issue of her supposed Cherokee ancestry.
Warren only admits to information after someone has the documents to prove her story wrong, and then her story changes. She originally denied having any idea why Harvard touted her as Native American, and denied using that supposed status professionally.
Yet drip by drip, documents have been uncovered, and Warren drip by drip admits a little more while doing everything to avoid answering questions.
We now know that starting in 1986 Warren filled out forms for a faculty law directory as “Native American“ putting her on a relatively short list of “Minority Law Teachers.” Her explanation of why she did it, to meet others like her, didn’t hold up.
We now know (because Warren finally admitted it last night after The Boston Globe found more documents) that Warren told her prior employer, U. Penn. Law, that she was Native American and that Penn reported it that way for federal filings.
We now know that in its Spring 1993 issue (which would have been prepared substantially before that), during Warren’s 1992-1993 “visiting” year at Harvard, the Harvard Women’s Law Journal listed Warren on a relatively short list of Women of Color in Legal Academia.
We now know (again last night after The Globe found documents) that Warren was listed for the 1992-1993 academic year as Native American in Harvard Law federal filings.
We now know that all these federal filings were false. There is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren is Native American, and substantial evidence she is not.
Making a false federal filing potentially was a crime. 18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed prior to 1996 revisions provided:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The statute since 1996 has provided:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Analysis of the statute as it existed in 1994 is here.
I’m not prepared to say Warren or Harvard violated the law. Not enough is known. But the federal criminal statute points to the importance of accuracy in federal filings.
In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Senate campaign is not a criminal prosecution. With all we now know, the burden is on Warren and Harvard to come clean, and to demonstrate that they did not make, or participate in the making of, false federal filings.
Warren knows what happened, and so does Harvard. It’s time for them to stop playing hard to get.
Update: Michael Patrick Leahy has a good round-up of all the mainstream media outlets finally picking up on Warren’s stunning admission to The Boston Glove.
And, Indian Country Today Media has a new story, Elizabeth Warren Avoids American Indian Media.
Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren claimed at an event in 2011 that she was the “first nursing mother” in New Jersey to take that state’s bar exam. The Boston Herald reports:
“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey,” Warren told an audience at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2011, in a video posted on the CHF website. When asked how Warren knows that, her campaign said: “Elizabeth was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced as a working mom – from taking an all-day bar exam when she was still breast-feeding, to finding work as a lawyer that would accommodate a mom with two small children.”
The Herald goes on to point out that women have been taking the bar exam in New Jersey since 1895, and a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Judiciary says she is “not aware” if the state tracked the nursing habits of those taking the bar.
The unverifiable claim is only the latest from Warren, who is challenging Republican Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate.
Warren has also said, both on the trail and in her professional life, that she descended from Cherokee Indians, but has been unable to back up this claim with any facts. Now, according to William Jacobson at the blog Legal Insurrection, a group of Cherokee people have started a website (and a Facebook page) called “Cherokees Demand Truth from Elizabeth Warren.” The group’s message to Warren is, “You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!”
Here’s more, from the group’s website:
We are a group of concerned enrolled Cherokees and descendants from the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; who demand that Elizabeth Warren tell the truth about her “Cherokee” ancestry and identity. Our group, 156 members strong and growing each day, is in it’s infancy so we are, at this time, an informal one with no specific organizational structure. Spokespeople for the group are Twila Barnes and David Cornsilk.
In copying a recipe from a cookbook word for word, Elizabeth Warren appears to have violated both Harvard College and Harvard Law School’s strict codes on plagiarism.
Harvard’s Guide to Using Sources’ manual, for example, advises Harvard students that “[w]hen you write papers in college, your work is held to the same standards of citation as the work of professors.” But that raises the question of what happens when faculty members don’t meet the standards that they vote in for students.
Indeed, the manual defines plagiarism as “passing off a source’s information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them.” It does not draw a distinction between work submitted academically or elsewhere.
The policy for the Law School is stricter still.
“The issue [of plagiarism] is essentially one of academic and intellectual honesty… All work submitted by a student for any academic or nonacademic exercise is expected to be the student’s own work.” [Emphasis mine]
The typical punishment is a two-semester suspension from Harvard College, according to The Crimson in 2005.
A typical punishment from Harvard Law School is even more severe, as the Law School makes clear with three examples:
In one case, a student who had plagiarized through paraphrasing the ideas of another throughout most of his seminar paper was suspended for one semester. The student argued that the standards applied to acknowledging sources in this country were far more stringent than those applied in his own country, and therefore his plagiarism was accidental. Although his argument may have been factually true, the Administrative Board found that he had in fact plagiarized and that this could not and would not be tolerated. At the time of his suspension the student was completing the Spring semester of his LL.M. degree. He received no credit for the entire semester. Under the terms of his suspension, this student had to re-apply to the LL.M. Program in order to regain admission. His readmission was denied.
In a second case, a student submitted a short paper that consisted entirely of material taken from a published article by another author. The material was not placed in quotation marks, nor was the article cited. Although the paper was one of several short, ungraded papers submitted in that course, the student received no credit for the course and was suspended for a semester.
In a third case, the student had graduated with his LL.M. degree. In time, it was brought to the attention of his former supervisor that his LL.M. Paper had been plagiarized. Ultimately, the student’s degree was rescinded.
In still another case – that of Megon Walker – Walker, a 2009 graduate of HLS, contended that the draft of an article she submitted for Harvard’s Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT). Unfortunately, Walker’s computer malfunctioned and she lost both the citations and much of her draft. She submitted the manuscript with, according to her, the promise that she be allowed to recreate the article, an account which the editors of JOLT disputed at the law school hearing. Ms. Walker is currently suing Harvard to shut them up about talking about her plagiarism case.
Warren’s Pow Wow Chow plagiarism came long before her arrival at Harvard. Nonetheless, the question remains: will Warren face a punishment as harsh as those meted out for students for her obvious case of plagiarism? It’s unlikely. Obama mentors and advisors, Professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree (who also advised Michelle Obama) both survived what were open and shut cases of plagiarism.
Ogletree, who came under fire for his sloppy research skills in All Deliberate Speed, blamed two of his research assistants for faulty research skills, while Tribe, coming to Ogletree’s defense, quickly found himself accused of plagiarism in his God Save This Honorable Court. Still another plagiarist was Doris Kearns Goodwin, who has been a persistent booster of Obama during the campaign trail and into his presidency and who once served on the Harvard Board of Overseers.
Perhaps the most famous alleged plagiarist at Harvard is none other than Barack Obama, who apparently plagiarized from fellow Harvard Law School alum, Deval Patrick.
We have long known that politicians, Warren and Obama, will say anything. Now we know that they don’t even bother to say it in their own words.
Elizabeth Warren was once asked how she paid for school. Referring to Brown’s nude modeling, she sneeringly said she did it by keeping her clothes on. But when it comes to the truth of her fraudulent behavior, the truth is coming out, naked for the world to see.
The knife cuts both ways.
Via William Jacobson:
Throughout her career and political campaign, Elizabeth Warren has found victims everywhere she looked, including when she looked in the mirror and saw an alleged descendant of one of the most historically victimized groups, Native Americans.
In what may be the ultimate and cruelest irony, not only is it unlikely that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee, it turns out that Warren’s great-great-great grandfather was a member of a militia unit which participated in the round-up of the Cherokees in the prelude to the Trail of Tears.
One of the worst things about living in Mass right now is that Warren’s shrill campaign ads run around the clock.
Could be the worst excuse of all time.
Via The Boston Herald:
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, fending off questions about whether she used her Native American heritage to advance her career, said today she enrolled herself as a minority in law school directories for nearly a decade because she hoped to meet other people with tribal roots.
“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.
The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.
Far left Democrat Elizabeth Warren claimed she was a native American at Harvard for years. She’s not.
The Boston Herald reported:
Elizabeth Warren said she had no idea until she read the Herald today her Native American heritage was touted by Harvard Law School as proof of their faculty’s diversity in the 1990s – a fact her rival wants her to apologize for.
“I think I read it on the front page of the Herald,” Warren said when asked about the issue.
“I don’t even remember,” she added when asked about a 1996 Harvard Crimson article that quoted a then-law school spokesman touting her minority status. “You’re trying to raise something from 15 years ago.”
Her GOP Senate rival, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, said today the story raises “some questions that need to be answered.” Brown’s campaign went further calling on Warren to apologize for allowing Harvard to claim she was part Native American.
“For years, Harvard has claimed special minority status for Professor Elizabeth Warren as a member of a Native American tribe and their first minority hire,” said Jim Barnett, campaign manager for Brown. “That Warren allowed Harvard to hold her up as an example of their commitment to diversity in the hiring of historically disadvantaged communities is an insult to all Americans who have suffered real discrimination and mistreatment, and Warren should apologize for participating in this hypocritical sham.”
Warren, who has not provided any documentation on her Native American heritage, said she is “proud” of her lineage.
“These are my family stories,” she said. “This is our lives and I am very proud of that.”