FoxNews.com reports that
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested this week that a school principal effectively fired her from a teaching job after she became “visibly pregnant,” but a resurfaced video indicates that wasn’t the actual reason she left the job.
“I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married,” Warren, then a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview posted to YouTube in 2008. “My first year post-graduation, I worked — it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ’emergency certificate,’ it was called.
“I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'” Warren continued. “I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?'”
By contrast, Warren told an audience at a town hall in Carson City, Nev. Wednesday that she had “loved” working as a special needs teacher.
“By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days,” she said. “Wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.”
Warren has repeated the story at campaign appearances throughout the summer, each time repeating the “principal did what principals did” line to describe her departure from teaching.
The senator’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment to clarify the apparent discrepancy.
This isn’t the first time that Warren’s past has raised questions about her credibility. She has been widely criticized for identifying herself as a Native American in legal directories before applying to work at Harvard Law School. Last year, Warren released the results of a DNA test showing she is only between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American — and apologized for identifying as Native American on past forms.
A Democrat Politician with credibility problems. Imagine that.
Why…next you’ll tell me that several Democrat Politicians colluded with Ukrainian officials to get dirt of Donald J. Trump before the 2016 Presidential Election.
Oh, wait…they did.
PJMedia.com reported earlier this year that
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have uncovered evidence of corruption and wrongdoing by American Democrats, including their involvement with Ukraine’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, John Solomon reported at the Hill.
The officials claim they have evidence of “contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump,” according to Solomon.
Additional evidence includes a Ukrainian natural gas company’s suspicious $3 million in payments to American accounts tied to Joe Biden’s youngest son, and the then-vice president’s efforts to quash the investigation.
Unfortunately, the Trump Justice Department appears to be disinterested in the evidence being offered by the Ukrainians, and it’s not clear why. Part of the problem, according to a top Ukrainian official, could be that the U.S. embassy in Kiev has been refusing to provide Ukrainian law enforcement officials with visas so they can deliver their evidence to Washington.
“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told Solomon. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”
The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine is Marie Louise Yovanovitch, who was appointed to the post by former President Barack Obama in August 2016. State Department officials declined to comment on the question of whether they denied or slow-walked visas for Ukrainian officials. “Visa records are confidential under U.S. law; therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases,” a department spokesperson told Solomon.
According to Kulyk, a company with ties to prominent Democrats was allegedly involved with a Ukrainian money-laundering operation. Businessmen friendly to the former pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych unlawfully moved large amounts of money out of Ukraine to the United States. The payments were authorized “for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told Solomon. “These payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company [with ties to Democrats] was involved in these payments.”
Kulyk also told Solomon that Ukrainian authorities have uncovered evidence that during the 2016 election, U.S. officials pressured Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to hide payouts to a certain American Democrat.
“In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of [the American] would not be mentioned,” he said.
In addition to that, according to the report, two Ukrainian officials have admitted in sworn statements that their agency leaked an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as part of their effort to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
DNC operative and Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa was heavily involved in this part of Ukraine’s efforts to sabotage Trump.
Haven’t we just spent the last almost 3 years of Trump’s First Term mired in accusations by the Democrats over Trump colluding with the Russians to influence the last elections?
And now, aren’t they attempting to impeach him over evidence of “colluding” with the new President of Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s scam?
And, while I am asking questions, I’ll ask one to myself: Why did you include the article about Warren?
Good question, self.
The nationally prominent Democrats have a credibility problem.
It started back with the Clintons and has continued with all those who have been active in the Democrat Hierarchy since.
They use lying both as a political strategy and weapon.
From small lies to whoppers which would make a fisherman blush, Democrat Politicians will lie to your face as easy as they breathe in and out.
From Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” to Obama’s “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” to Schiff claiming no prior contact with the whistleblower (i.e., CIA Deep State Democrat), these professional snake oil salesmen lie to average Americans and expect us to believe them.
Even as I write this, it is coming out that several of the Dems have ties with lucrative business deals in Ukraine.
Between that information and the fact that their Potential Presidential Candidates all stink on ice, the Democrats find themselves in swamp of desperation, filled with their own lies.
Blinded by a total lack of self-awareness and consumed by avarice, the Democrats will keep on lying to achieve their political goals and to quench their thirst for power and control.
The question is:
What lie will they tell, next?
Until He Comes,