http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146628/Elizabeth-Warrens-Pow-Wow-Chow-Cherokee-recipes-word-word-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34792497)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/05/08/elizabeth-warren-ancestor-trail-of-tears/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34792537)

'Great accompaniment to plain meat and potatoes meal!' both Mrs Warren and the Better Homes author say.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34792563)

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454121/elizabeth-warren-native-american-heritage-harvard-fraud

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34792899)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/10/22/warren-describes-sexual-harassment-early-teaching-job/gUSBA0c3GFL9URrMtW5JyI/story.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34793000)

lmao wtf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34793106)

'Great accompaniment to plain meat and potatoes meal!”

Just like Warren and better homes and garden did

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34793542)

FUCKING

WAY

omg please some outlet other than xo daily mail run with this, i would never link anyone to the DM but holy fuuuuuuck if the NYT ran with this (they might; remember, they're the ones behind the hillary email shit)

edit: fuck, this is an article from 2012

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#34795064)

look at what she signed on her bar admission to Texas:

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/02/Warren-Registration-Card_1986.jpg?resize=600,400

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38907589)

And I will also acknowledge that I get why you trumpmos just want to play along twitter memeing with your Cheeto God Emperor, and don’t really give a shit about the details if it helps him and hurts his opponent, since he’s on the side of low taxes for rich people, white majorities and soft Christian dominionism and those are all things that you as conservafags have loved your whole lives.

Last, I admire the subtle brilliance of using the abject shittiness of the state of Oklahoma against the Dems. If you ever lived among/near these people they all claim to be Indians, literally 90+% of them, and anyone vaguely familiar with the history of the state when faced with that claim should say “ok so did the white people in your family rape the Indians or just steal their land?”

Liz Warren was a made woman in legal academia by the 90s. As We Forgive Our Debtors was released in 1989 and by then she was already considered a world class academic as a bankruptcy prof/writer that had already worked her way up from true TTT to UTTT to Penn and that book made her a legit public intellectual on the topic and set the stage for her further rise in the 90s and the two income trap. The idea that her (99.9%) false claim to Indian heritage played any role whatsoever in her progression through the bankruptcy law academia hierarchy in the 70s and 80s when AA was barely a concept is laughable, and it’s full on retarded to try to claim that Harvard actually cared that she was purportedly American Indian and would not have been hired but for her (99.9%) false claim of ancestory. It’s preposterous to claim that she had some clever scheme to rise up through the ranks of academia by claiming Indian heritage and this was her first step. In fact, the bar card is much better evidence of her genuine, good faith, and (99.9%) false belief in a family heritage story that she didn’t have any reason to doubt when she heard it growing up, other than the fact that she was raised in Oklahoma, a land full of lying assholes.

I know this is super autistic and does Warren no good and again I get why trumpmos will go all in on this to try to tear her down. But I used to expect this kind of nuance to be comprehended on XO pre Trump and I just don’t anymore. This has been a topic of discussion here in dozens of threads and no one makes this basic point I.e. that all of you know damn well how much of an outlier her career is, and you know how stupid it is to claim that she would not have made it to Harvard without claiming to be American Indian. Even before the bankruptcy bill in 2005 she was a national name in legal academic circles and could have had any job she wanted. I was in law school and tried to take her class in the early aughts (you literally had to apply like it was a job bc there were like 400 people applying and 20 seats in the seminar). No one thought she was anything other than a white lady who was a world class bankruptcy expert.

So again I get what you’re doing. I just wish when we’re all here and actually interested in discussing this stuff with other informed/informedish people that you would be honest about the basic facts. Doesn’t mean she isn’t fake in various other ways and doesn’t mean she’d make a great president. But trump is the WWFification of politics and it’s sad to see you all go along with it so gleefully.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38907854)

as for the HLS hiring committee, go ahead and name a single person they admit they would not have hired but for minority status. in other words, they never had admitted, and never will admit, that minority status had any material role in hiring.

now go ahead and show me a single tenured HLS faculty who wasn't a federal clerk, who didn't graduate cum laude, and who attended the schools she attended. name one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38907869)

2) I confess I haven’t memorized the CVs of every law faculty member at Harvard from 1992-98 or so, but you are talking past my point. By 1995 she was already a famous public intellectual with a huge publication record and was multidisciplinary (however fraudulently) when that was just becoming a huge resume boost. It’s just obviously laughable to not mention the specifics of her scholarship as a component of her wild overachievement in her career as a legal scholar and attribute it all to her fake Indian heritage. If it was that easy to become a Harvard law prof by bullshitting some Indian blood there would be dozens of oklahomans all over the campus in Cambridge. I’ll put it this way: 99.9% of the reason she made it to Harvard was that she was already a legit public intellectual in her field with an exemplary publication record teaching at a top 10 law school who had played the academia game essentially perfectly to position herself to climb the ladder. And you also underestimate how big a job market advantage she had at the time being a woman. Pre SOC US law school gender ratios were like 3-1 or 4-1 male female particularly at higher ranked schools. She pretty much had them at vagina, and again I was there at the time when she was a law prof at Harvard and no one thought of her as an Indian, nor did she have any role as a critical race theorist or any of that other shit. This was when Derrick Bell was making a huge scene about this stuff, leaving in a huff for NYU and selling shows to HBO for fuckssake/lol. I actually think she had to keep her head down about the Indian stuff for fear of being called out as a fraud, which was obvious upon meeting her. The fact that in defending themselves against Derrick Bell one admin got the bright idea to list her as an Indian doesn’t really do much to prove that she promoted this aspect of her identity when there’s so much missing from that narrative of her time at harvard and such a compelling alternative/dominant narrative of her career.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908076)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908409)

when you say that her pre-HLS work was the central factor, you cannot name even one HLS tenured prof with her law school and clerking record. not one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908782)

"she had nothing -- zero -- to get herself hired with tenure at HLS except fraudulent native american status"

This is just patently false. She had plenty in her CV to get hired at Harvard. She was tenured with an endowed chair at UPenn. She had dozens of law review articles, multiple casebooks and numerous chapters in others, a book that was a huge commercial success by law prof standards and also won academic awards, multiple appearances before congress as a bankruptcy expert, teaching awards, etc. Her CV in 1995 was already very strong relative to any other young prof in their early/mid career and she had her husband to leverage for connections and spousal tenure deals, and she was pushing a lefty take/rejoinder to a more conservative/right-wing academic movement of law and econ just as it became fashionable in academia. And the argument that she was this crazy outlier AA hire ought to imply that she would have shit the bed once there and that her early work was never cited, but instead she was a break out star within 7 years and piled up a gigantic CV and was cited a ton for years, regardless of how well her data sourcing and econ holds up. Law and Econ with a leftist tinge in the 80s and 90s might have been a huge circle jerk, but by academic career standards it was a bonanza and she was essentially their poster girl.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909368)

"In 1995, she was appointed the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard, where she is currently the only tenured member of the law faculty to have received her training from an American public university."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908803)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908937)

But the things that Rebecca Nagle says about her are all 100% correct. and agree with her article from last month that Warren still hasn't properly owned up to what she did, and that she should make a more public effort to correct herself and point out how common it is that white people do what she did and get away with it. Warren will never do it because it would only serve to focus more attention on this shady part of her bio, but it's what she should do. If she's elected I hope she does something like this then, and is also a vocal and prominent defender/advocate for Tribal rights.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909151)

She thought, at best, that she maybe had A great-great-great-grandmother that was ("at least partially") Native American. https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/10/15/warren-dna-analysis-points-to-native-american-heritage

Based on that, she ONLY wrote "American Indian" on her bar card. Not "White and," but JUST "American Indian." She knew exactly what she was doing, and regardless of how qualified she supposedly was to get where she did, this will rightfully forever taint her wherever she goes. The ONLY reason to make such a display of writing that in was to promote herself as a minority. Hence the plagiarized recipes.

It's indefensible in and of itself, not because it can be explained away. But you go ahead and keep trying, little pumo.

*pats you on the head*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908379)

I'm sure claiming to be a WOC had nothing to do with giving her an edge. Too bad she didn't let her resume speak for itself and get there on merit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908694)

now you ask for me for direct admissions from the HLS hiring committee that her fraud was the direct cause of her admission.

but your silence in response to my several requests for a single situation where the committee admitted that minority status was the cause of hiring proves my point. they have never, and will never, admit that that's the cause -- even as they demand that that factor be used as the decisive cause.

studies show that not a single person got tenure at HLS with her creds. you have now admitted that by your repeated silence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909305)

"yeah i admitted she's a fraudlie who got into HLS by fraud."

thank you, brother!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909401)

Amazing how so many can’t recognize you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38908922)

The only part that pisses me off is the claim that it made no difference in her hiring (it *especially* pisses me off when people cite to contemporary profs' claims that they didn't base their vote on her race, since they'd never say that *anyone* working at hls wouldn't be there but for their race). Would she still have been hired as a white lady? Maybe. But that misses the point, which is that the issue was clearly centrally relevant (and favorable) to her hiring. Would I have still gotten into where I went with a 174 instead of a 177? Probably. But saying my (actual) lsat isn't relevant is silly, and if it turned out I fraudulently submitted a 177 instead of a 174 people would be right to call me a fraud.

Really, though, this defense reminds me of pats fans during deflategate who talked about how the pats mostly ran the ball a ton and won big anyway: the argument isn't "The Patriots aren't good at football; they just appeared to be because of their fraudulent ball deflation!"; it's "The Pats are FUCKING CHEATERS."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909164)

So sure, she seems like she had to be a relentless climber to get where she got, and it's reasonable to think that if she thought Harvard wanted her partly because she had a facially silly claim to Cherokee ancestry that she would not have gone out of her way to correct the record, assuming she even thought it needed correcting. And in that sense she "cheated" by believing whatever she believed and letting Harvard believe what they believed. But the amount of pushback I get here for pointing out that she was already a very qualified academic in 1995 is emblematic of how stupid and defensive the Trumpmo discourse has gotten here, and that's really gay and lame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909507)

.....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,;

that's a poster who concedes killing fact after killing fact but then re-argues as if she/he never conceded a fact.

what is blue-share or share-blue, again? and what are they up to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909610)

TLDR of the entire subthread wasteland you and I spent all day generating:

Me: "The fact that she cheated/was shady doesn't prove that she would not have gotten to Harvard without cheating. She was already a very accomplished academic."

You: "She cheated and therefore she would never have gotten to Harvard otherwise! Also I read a couple articles about her scholarship by right wing pundits, therefore all her work is completely fraud!"

Me: "Prove it? I admit she's not the world's greatest legal scholar, but I don't think you can prove that she would not have gotten Harvard but for her relatively subtle claim of Cherokee heritage."

You: "No you prove it!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909635)

i also showed that her "scholarship" has been exposed as fraud.

you: "i'm not convinced to my personal standards and i can't offer a single example of anyone who's gotten HLS or YLS or SLS tenure under remotely comparable situation. but i am not personally convinced."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909658)

Your point that Harvard never hires noclerkmos from TTTs does nothing to disprove my point that the rest of her CV was very strong, and you've never addressed my point at all. You have shown that they clearly made an exception for her in terms of her academic pedigree. You haven't come even remotely close to proving that the sole reason for that exception is because she falsely claimed to be a tiny part Cherokee. You are too dumb to realize that your hatred of libs has clouded your understanding of what it means to know something v. to strongly believe something based on various pre-existing biases about her politics, AA, your rejection from Harvard, liberals dominating academia, you never getting laid and having no access to a vagina, etc. etc. Congrats on being retarded. Please consider going to Reddit and leaving here forever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909693)

Irrelevant; genetic fallacy; ad hominem.

"But I'll put it this way: if this was a motion for summary judgment hearing you would lose and I would win because there is a remaining question of fact, that question being the extent to which Harvard weighted her bogus Cherokee ancestry claim in giving her a tenured prof position in 1995."

You concede that her "bogus" ancestry claim was part of her pitch to HLS. So you would lose your Rule 56 motion for summary judgment -- to use the standard you propose.

"Your point that Harvard never hires noclerkmos from TTTs does nothing to disprove my point that the rest of her CV was very strong, and you've never addressed my point at all."

You just conceded the ultimate point. As you phrased it, "Harvard never hires noclerkmos from TTTs." Agreed and I win.

"You have shown that they clearly made an exception for her in terms of her academic pedigree."

Agreed and because I show a simple, parsimonious reason for that exception and you show none, I win again.

The rest of your argument is ad hominem abusive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909783)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4320586&mc=98&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3811628&forum_id=2#38909798)